Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 March;56(3) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 March;56(3):269-74

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS

A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology


Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,215


eTOC

 

SPECIAL ARTICLES  EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CLINICAL MEDICINE


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 March;56(3):269-74

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Female athlete triad screening in Canadian Interuniversity Sport universities: analysis of the pre-participation evaluation form

Erin CUDDINGTON 1, Jason J. SHIN 1, Rachel M. FRANK 2

1 College of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada; 2 Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA


PDF  


BACKGROUND: Our aim was to examine inclusion of screening questions related to female athlete triad in the Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) pre-participation evaluation (PPE) forms. We hypothesized that the current CIS PPE forms are not comprehensive screening tools for identifying athletes at risk for the female athlete triad.
METHODS: All 48 English-speaking CIS universities were invited to participate in the study. Via e-mail, a copy of the PPE form was requested from team physicians and certified athletic trainers. Two reviewers evaluated the PPE forms for inclusion of the 12 items recommended by the Female Athlete Triad Coalition for primary screening for the triad.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 48 CIS universities responded (81%). The majority of the universities (97%), required a PPE for incoming athletes. Only 9 universities (24%) had 6 or more of the 12 recommended screening items included in their forms, whereas 26 universities (70%) included 4 or less items. Three universities (8%) did not address any of the recommended questions. Questions related to disordered eating were often absent in the collected PPEs. In 10 universities (27%), PPE forms were completed by the athlete alone. The remaining 27 (73%) universities required the form to be completed by the athlete in conjunction with a therapist, physician, or both.
CONCLUSIONS: PPE forms used by CIS universities have limited ability to identify athletes at risk of the triad-based on the recommendations of the Coalition. Furthermore, there is a lack of uniformity of the PPE forms within the CIS.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

jason.shin@usask.ca