Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025
A Neuroscientific Approach to the Examination of Concussions in Student-Athletes
Published on: December 8, 2014
Considerations for Implementing the Post-Concussion Collegiate Return-to-Learn Protocol in the National Collegiate
Allyssa K Memmini1, Dominique L Kinnett-Hopkins, Rebecca E Hasson
1Department of Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Dr Memmini); Concussion Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Drs Memmini, Kinnett-Hopkins, Hasson, and Broglio); and School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and University of Michigan Athletics, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor (Dr Rifat).
Objective:
Although concussions affect millions of young adults annually, researchers have yet to assess factors that may affect future implementation of post-concussion academic supports within higher education. Therefore, we sought to evaluate preimplementation outcomes of the acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and readiness for change of the Post-Concussion Collegiate Return-to-Learn (RTL) Protocol among university stakeholders.
Setting:
An online survey.
Participants:
A convenience sample ( N = 49; 63.3% female) of athletic trainers (ATs; n = 25, age = 30.1 ± 7.6 years) and university faculty/staff ( n = 24, age = 38.3 ± 9.9 years) across the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Power 5 Conferences from January to February 2022.
Design:
A cross-sectional study.
Main Measures:
To compare preimplementation outcome measures using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) regarding the RTL protocol between ATs and university faculty/staff. Additional outcomes included internal and external barriers to implementing at their respective institutions. Statistical analyses were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests, with effect sizes estimated using eta-squared coefficient (η 2 ).
Results:
Quantitative analyses yielded no statistically significant group differences ( P s > .05) across the AIM, FIM, and IAM outcomes, indicating both groups perceived the protocol to be acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. Moreover, ATs reported higher agreement regarding motivation, desire, willingness to do "whatever it takes," commitment, and determination to implement the novel protocol than faculty/staff. Further, ATs reported higher agreement regarding their institution's confidence to keep track of its progress, support adjustment, maintain momentum, manage institutional politics, coordinate tasks, encourage investment, and handle the challenges of future implementation of the RTL protocol.
Conclusions:
Preliminary findings suggest ATs and university faculty/staff across the NCAA Power 5 Conferences may perceive the RTL protocol to be acceptable, feasible, and appropriate for future use; however, noteworthy internal and external barriers may influence its uptake. Future research should utilize implementation frameworks to support the protocol's adoption and reach.
