Athletic Trainers Perceived Knowledge and Use of Vestibular Rehabilitation

Therapy for Concussion Athletes

Abstract:
Sports related concussions are a frequent injury among athletes in the United States.
Signs and symptoms include dizziness, tinnitus, nausea, motor impairment,
personality changes, fatigue, trouble sleeping, depression, neck pain, feeling “in a
fog”, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, unequal pupil sizes, and a general
feeling of not being oneself (Starkey & Brown, 2015). Athletes may suffer from
lingering vestibular related symptoms that postpone their return to sport. These
symptoms include dizziness, imbalance, trouble focusing or with eye tracking,
sensitivity to light, tinnitus and cognitive difficulties. Current research has shown a
significant number of concussion athletes have benefited from the use of vestibular
rehabilitation therapy (VRT) when they have lingering vestibular symptoms
(Mcleod & Hale, 2014). The purpose of this study was to determine athletic trainers’
knowledge and use of VRT for concussion patients. Results showed that 8.3% of the
athletic trainers surveyed had no knowledge of VRT, 28.7% have little knowledge,
34.3% have some knowledge, 27.1% have average knowledge, and 1.7% have
advanced knowledge. It was concluded that 48.6% of respondents use VRT for their
concussion athletes, but only 35.4% said they have recently used VRT. When
analyzing differences there was no significant difference in knowledge or use of VRT
based on age, gender, and level of education. When examining the setting, years
certified, and number of concussion patients treated, there were no significant
difference in use of VRT, but there were significant differences in knowledge based
on setting (F=3.896, p=0.0022), years certified (F= 2.807, p=0.041), and number of
concussion patients (F=2.738, p=0.035). Those in the collegiate setting believed that
they had little knowledge of VRT while those in the secondary setting believed they
had some knowledge of VRT. When analyzing number of years certified the
individuals certified 31-40 years had a significantly higher knowledge then those in
other groups. Finally, individuals that treated 50 or more patients had a greater
knowledge of VRT than those with less patients. Although there was no significant
difference in knowledge based on number of rehabilitation hours conducted, there
was a significant difference in recent use (F=3.688, P=0.013) and general use
(F=4.649, P=0.004). It was found that those that complete 0-10 hours of
rehabilitation hours weekly state that they use VRT more then those who complete
11-20 hours weekly and 30 or more hours weekly. From these results, it can be
concluded that there are varied levels in the knowledge and use of VRT in the
athletic training population.