No abstract

Concussion among athletes is an issue of growing concern, with efforts underway to improve detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Success depends on communication by athletes, as brain-related symptoms are often not outwardly visible. Education programs to increase reporting behavior have not been successful to date. In accordance with the socioecological approach to health, we argue that multiple levels of influence on student athletes must be addressed, and report a multi-dimensional, mixed-methods research project conducted to identify possible points of intervention into changing the culture of concussion-injury reporting among collegiate athletes. Using quantitative, qualitative and interpretive methods, we examine the individual-level vested interests athletes have in reporting or not reporting concussion symptoms, and how these interests interact with community-level team culture and interpersonal relationships , and social-level cultural narratives to influence concussion-reporting behavior. Our findings confirm the viability of this approach, identifying immediacy, separation of responsibility and pain-enduring story systems as particularly salient elements. We conclude that competing performance versus safety value structures, reflected in cultural narratives and team culture, create mixed-messages for athletes, which are resolved in favor of performance because athletes perceive concussion injuries to be of low immediacy.

This two-wave longitudinal study (performed pre-COVID), using both quantitative and qualitative data, investigated college students’ influenza vaccine hesitancy and confidence using the theory of planned behavior (TPB). At Time 1, college students ( n = 277) completed TPB measures and reported past influenza vaccine behavior. At Time 2 (30 days later), participants indicated whether they received the influenza vaccine since Time 1. At Time 2, participants who indicated that they had not received the influenza vaccine since Time 1 also described their most important reasons for not doing so. The TPB model fit the quantitative data well; direct paths from attitude and norms to intention, and from intention to future behavior, were strong and significant. The TPB model explained 71% of the variance in intention and 28% of the variance in future behavior. Neither perceived behavioral control nor past behavior improved the model’s ability to predict intentions or future behavior. From the qualitative data, participants’ reasons for not getting vaccinated focused on perceived behavioral control (e.g., time cost) and attitudes (e.g., unimportance and low susceptibility). Theoretical implications for message development are discussed.

No abstract