ABSTRACT
To examine whether high school student-athletes who experienced more COVID-19 disruptions had increased anxiety, increased dejection, increased anger, decreased excitement, and decreased happiness as measured by the validated Sports Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ). During the COVID-19 pandemic high school student-athletes faced disruptions which resulted in cancelation of competitions, reduced in-person training sessions, and quarantine of athletes. The impact of these disruptions on the mental health and well-being of student-athletes is unknown. An anonymous cross-sectional online survey was electronically distributed to high school student-athletes in one school district during the spring of the 2020 to 21 academic year. Basic demographic questions, sport information, and personal and team disruptions were collected. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess correlation between each emotional domain on the SEQ with independent variables such as personal or teammate quarantines, cancelations, season, sport gender, indoor or outdoor location, and level of competition. 125 surveys were returned representing 28 different sports. Student-athletes who were personally quarantined (22.4%) during their athletic season experienced greater dejection (β = 0.78, P = .003) and greater anger (β = 0.78, P = .005). Those with teammates quarantined (61.6%) experienced more anxiety (β = 0.30, P = .048). Spring sports, which faced fewer restrictions, were associated with less anger (β = −0.48, P = .048). Student-athletes who were directly affected by COVID-19 disruptions experienced increased anxiety, more dejection, and more anger. Public health authorities and school districts should minimize disruptions to athletic participation using established COVID-19 safety protocols to avoid causing harm to athletes' social-emotional well-being. If athletics must be disrupted, student-athletes should receive wellness support and virtual or remote training options.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The McIsaac criteria are a validated scoring system used to determine the likelihood of an acute sore throat being caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) to stratify patients who need strep testing. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare McIsaac criteria obtained during face-to-face (f2f) and non-f2f encounters. METHODS: This retrospective study compared the percentage of positive GAS tests by McIsaac score for scores calculated during nurse protocol phone encounters, e-visits (electronic visits), and in person f2f clinic visits. RESULTS: There was no difference in percentages of positive strep tests between encounter types for any of the McIsaac scores. There were significantly more phone and e-visit encounters with any missing score components compared with f2f visits. For individual score components, there were significantly fewer e-visits missing fever and cough information compared with phone encounters and f2f encounters. F2f encounters were significantly less likely to be missing descriptions of tonsils and lymphadenopathy compared with phone and e-visit encounters. McIsaac scores of 4 had positive GAS rates of 55% to 68% across encounter types. There were 4 encounters not missing any score components with a McIsaac score of 0. None of these 4 encounters had a positive GAS test. CONCLUSIONS: McIsaac scores of 4 collected during non-f2f care could be used to consider empiric treatment for GAS without testing if significant barriers to testing exist such as the COVID-19 pandemic or geographic barriers. Future studies should evaluate further whether non-f2f encounters with McIsaac scores of 0 can be safely excluded from GAS testing.