Sport-related concussion research agenda beyond medical science: culture, ethics, science, policy.

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1136/jme-2022-108812
Mike McNamee, Lynley C Anderson, Pascal Borry, Silvia Camporesi, Wayne Derman, Soren Holm, Taryn Rebecca Knox, Bert Leuridan, Sigmund Loland, Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Ludovica Lorusso, Dominic Malcolm, David McArdle, Brad Partridge, Thomas Schramme, Mike Weed
{"title":"Sport-related concussion research agenda beyond medical science: culture, ethics, science, policy.","authors":"Mike McNamee, Lynley C Anderson, Pascal Borry, Silvia Camporesi, Wayne Derman, Soren Holm, Taryn Rebecca Knox, Bert Leuridan, Sigmund Loland, Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Ludovica Lorusso, Dominic Malcolm, David McArdle, Brad Partridge, Thomas Schramme, Mike Weed","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Concussion in Sport Group guidelines have successfully brought the attention of brain injuries to the global medical and sport research communities, and has significantly impacted brain injury-related practices and rules of international sport. Despite being the global repository of state-of-the-art science, diagnostic tools and guides to clinical practice, the ensuing consensus statements remain the object of ethical and sociocultural criticism. The purpose of this paper is to bring to bear a broad range of multidisciplinary challenges to the processes and products of sport-related concussion movement. We identify lacunae in scientific research and clinical guidance in relation to age, disability, gender and race. We also identify, through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary analysis, a range of ethical problems resulting from conflicts of interest, processes of attributing expertise in sport-related concussion, unjustifiably narrow methodological control and insufficient athlete engagement in research and policy development. We argue that the sport and exercise medicine community need to augment the existing research and practice foci to understand these problems more holistically and, in turn, provide guidance and recommendations that help sport clinicians better care for brain-injured athletes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108812","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Concussion in Sport Group guidelines have successfully brought the attention of brain injuries to the global medical and sport research communities, and has significantly impacted brain injury-related practices and rules of international sport. Despite being the global repository of state-of-the-art science, diagnostic tools and guides to clinical practice, the ensuing consensus statements remain the object of ethical and sociocultural criticism. The purpose of this paper is to bring to bear a broad range of multidisciplinary challenges to the processes and products of sport-related concussion movement. We identify lacunae in scientific research and clinical guidance in relation to age, disability, gender and race. We also identify, through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary analysis, a range of ethical problems resulting from conflicts of interest, processes of attributing expertise in sport-related concussion, unjustifiably narrow methodological control and insufficient athlete engagement in research and policy development. We argue that the sport and exercise medicine community need to augment the existing research and practice foci to understand these problems more holistically and, in turn, provide guidance and recommendations that help sport clinicians better care for brain-injured athletes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越医学的体育相关脑震荡研究议程:文化、伦理、科学、政策。
体育运动脑震荡小组指导方针成功地使全球医学界和体育研究界关注脑损伤问题,并对与脑损伤相关的实践和国际体育规则产生了重大影响。尽管它是全球最先进科学、诊断工具和临床实践指南的宝库,但随之而来的共识声明仍受到伦理和社会文化方面的批评。本文旨在对与运动相关的脑震荡运动的过程和产物提出广泛的多学科挑战。我们指出了与年龄、残疾、性别和种族有关的科学研究和临床指导方面的缺陷。通过多学科和跨学科分析,我们还发现了一系列伦理问题,这些问题源于利益冲突、运动相关脑震荡专业知识的归属过程、不合理的狭隘方法控制以及运动员对研究和政策制定的参与不足。我们认为,运动医学界需要加强现有的研究和实践重点,以便更全面地了解这些问题,进而提供指导和建议,帮助体育临床医生更好地护理脑损伤运动员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Strengthening harm-theoretic pro-life views. Wish to die trying to live: unwise or incapacitous? The case of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust versus 'ST'. Pregnant women are often not listened to, but pathologising pregnancy isn't the solution. How ectogestation can impact the gestational versus moral parenthood debate. If not a right to children because of gestation, then not a duty towards them either.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1