Abstract

Context: Previous researchers have demonstrated that male and female athletes feel more comfortable with treatment by a same-sex athletic trainer for sex-specific injuries and conditions. Objective: To address football players' comfort with care provided by same-sex and opposite-sex athletic trainers for sex-specific and non–sex-specific injuries and conditions through the lens of role congruity theory. Design: Cross-sectional study for the quantitative data and qualitative study for the qualitative data. Setting: Two National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Football Bowl Series university football programs. Patients or Other Participants: Male football players within the 2 university programs. Data Collection and Analysis: We replicated existing methods and an existing survey to address male football players' comfort levels. Additionally, an open-ended question was used to determine male football players' perceptions of female athletic trainers. Paired-samples t tests were conducted to identify differences between the responses for the care given by a male athletic trainer and for the care given by a female athletic trainer. Three categories were analyzed: general medical conditions, psychological conditions, and sex-specific injuries. The qualitative data were coded and analyzed using content analysis. Results: Male football players were more comfortable with treatment by a male athletic trainer (mean = 3.61 ± 1.16) for sex-specific injuries and conditions than they were with treatment by a female athletic trainer (mean = 2.82 ± 1.27; P < .001). No significant results were found for comfort with overall psychological conditions, although a female athletic trainer was preferred over a male athletic trainer for the treatment of depression (mean = 3.71 ± 1.07 versus mean = 3.39 ± 1.16, respectively; P < .001). Qualitative data provided support for role congruity theory. Conclusions: Both quantitative and qualitative evidence were provided for the support of role congruity theory. Verf.-Referat