User perception and acceptance of softshell headgear amongst youth rugby players

Abstract

Introduction. This study investigated the attitudes of youth rugby players towards the use of protective softshell headgear during rugby training and matches. The primary objective was to gain insights into their preferences and concerns regarding headgear. The innovative aspect of this research lies in its focus on youth rugby players and their perceptions of headgear, which is one of the crucial aspects of player safety. Methods. A survey was administered to 43 high school-level (Years 9-13) rugby players (females aged 13-17 and males aged 14-16 years). The survey aimed to assess players’ attitudes towards headgear. The participants were asked questions regarding their use of headgear during training sessions and matches, previous use of headgear, reasons for discontinuing its use, and headgear brands they have worn. Additionally, those who wore headgear were asked about their motivations for using it, while those who did not wear headgear were questioned about their reasons for not doing so. Participants' confidence in their head protection without headgear, head injuries experienced, familiarity with headgear specifications, and awareness of information about headgear benefits and risks were also examined. Results. Among the participants, the majority (37 players), did not wear headgear during training sessions, with 3 using it occasionally and 3 using it consistently. In matches, 32 did not wear headgear, 3 used it occasionally, and 8 used it consistently. Of those who previously wore headgear but stopped, reasons included discomfort, a perception that headgear was ineffective, and that headgear restricted mobility. Various brands of headgear were reported to be used, CCC (Canterbury of New Zealand), not World Rugby Approved, was the most common (12) followed by NPro (World Rugby Approved) (9). For those who wore headgear at any stage, the primary reasons (chosen from any of ten options) included parental advice (78%) and protection from head injuries (52%). The main reasons for not wearing headgear were lack of ventilation (67%), headgear was bulky/annoying (50%), general discomfort (44%), and headgear use not being compulsory (36%). Additionally, 19 participants believed that headgear offers protection against potential head injuries, 13 were unsure, and 11 believed that it did not offer protection. Conclusions. The results of this study indicate a range of attitudes among youth rugby players towards the use of headgear. Understanding their motivations and concerns is crucial for improving player safety. While some players see headgear as a valuable protective measure, others are deterred by factors such as discomfort and lack of ventilation. There is a need for greater awareness and education about headgear benefits and risks among rugby players, potential modifications to headgear design to enhance comfort and ventilation should be explored.