Using Sports Injury Surveillance Data to Drive Policy Discussions

Background: For years, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Sports Medicine Advisory Committee (SMAC) strongly recommended protective eyewear use be required in field hockey. Although several individual states adopted eyewear mandates, the NFHS Field Hockey Rules Committee consistently rejected setting a nationwide mandate. Subsequently, the SMAC requested the NFHS Board of Directors implement a nationwide mandate and in 2010, after hearing arguments in favor of and against use of protective eyewear in field hockey, the Board voted to implement a national mandate beginning in 2011/12.

Methods: High School RIO(TM) field hockey injury surveillance data from 2008/09-2010/11 captured in states with and without protective eyewear mandates was used to evaluate arguments against use of protective eyewear in field hockey. Because eye injuries are rare in all high school sports, including field hockey, all eye/head/face injuries (head injuries) were evaluated.

Results: During the study period 29.1% of reporting schools were from states with protective eyewear mandates. Head injury rates per 100,000 athlete-exposures in states with (31.8) and without (38.0) protective eyewear mandates were similar (p=0.55). Aditionally, the proportion of all injuries caused by player-player contact in states with (32.1%) and without (24.1%) protective eyewear mandates were similar (p=0.55).

Conclusion: High School RIO(TM) data refuted arguments against use of protective eyewear in field hockey. These sports injury surveillance data helped drive an evidence-based policy discussion that resulted in implementation of a national injury prevention effort.