











































MANUSCRIPT TYPE


EDITORIAL 

 

1 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                      Volume 3 – Issue 3 – November 2020 
 

Translating Evidence to Practice in Athletic Training 
Cameron J. Powden, PhD, LAT, ATC 
University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 
 

 
Key Phrases 
Evidence-Based, Literature Review, Knowledge-Translation 
Resources   
 
Correspondence 
Dr. Cameron Powden, University of Indianapolis, Health 
Pavilion, #331, 1643 E Hanna Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46227. 
E-mail: powdenc@uindy.edu  
Twitter: @CamPowden 
 
Full Citation 
Powden CJ. Translating evidence to practice in athletic 
training. Clin Pract Athl Train. 2020;3(3): 1-3. 
https://doi.org/10.31622/2020/0003.3.1.    
 
Submitted: October 21, 2020 Accepted: November 27, 
2020 

 
EDITORIAL 

Evidence and evidence-based practice (EBP) 

are buzzwords within the field of athletic training 
and healthcare. These words may create mixed 
feelings, as polarizing as politics, for athletic 
trainers. However, the unifying of these words into 
the fabric of athletic training has been symbolized 
with the integration of EBP as a core competency 
in the 2020 Standards for Accreditation of 
Professional Athletic Training Programs.1 The 
framework for EBP is here to stay and it will be a 
driving force in the growth and recognition of the 
athletic training profession.2 The incorporation of 
EBP provides clinicians with the tools needed to 
search the literature, assess the quality, and 
integrate their clinical expertise in combination 
with patient values to interpret the appropriate 
clinical course of action.3,4 Furthermore, EBP can 
provide the base for quality improvement 
initiatives within athletic training to formalize the 
clinical expertise portion of EBP. Examples of the 
benefits of EBP are all around us, signaling the 
need for all athletic trainers to embrace the 
practice. 
 
The translation of EBP into clinical practice is not 
an easy one, however. Athletic trainers perceive  

 
that they lack the knowledge on how to implement 
EBP into clinical practice.5 Even when knowledge 
of EBP is increased, confidence in implementation 
methods decrease over time and resulted in the 
failed adoption of EBP concepts in clinical 
practice.5 To enhance the integration of the 
available literature into the clinical decision-
making process there is a need to understand, 
breakdown, and overcome the barriers to EBP’s 
implementation. Barriers related to time and the 
availability of EBP resources have been prevalent 
within the literature.6 These two barriers are most 
likely connected as busy clinicians’ feelings that 
they may not have the physical time to commit to 
the reading, understanding, and interpretation of 
complex research articles would only be 
exacerbated by a lack of access to EBP resources 
that would reduce the investment needed to 
complete this process.6 Overall, this may signal the 
need for more processed and refined literature to 
reduce the perceived barrier of time and act as 
an approachable gateway into EBP habits.7 
 
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses stand as 
the pinnacle of evidence and attempt to provide 
a refined view of the knowledge on a given topic. 
They do this well by completing many steps of the 
EBP process for a practicing clinician: search of 
literature, organization of multiple investigations, 
critical appraisal, and summary of evidence.3,4 As 
such, systematic reviews have the potential to 
reduce the time needed to engage with the 
literature in order to develop the knowledge 
needed to inform clinical decisions. However, 
systematic reviews and meta-analyses often 
present barriers to the clinician as they may feel 
unapproachable due to complex 
contextualization of findings, statistical 
approaches, and a lack of actionable policy 
recommendations.8 You may be among the many 
clinicians that have identified a promising review 

https://doi.org/10.31622/2020/0003.3.1


Translating Evidence to Practice in Athletic Training  

 

 
2 
 

Copyright © Indiana State University   Clinical Practice in Athletic Training 
ISSN Online 2577-8188    Volume 3 – Issue 3 – November 2020 
 

only to realize that there was a lack of clinically 
relevant and actionable information beyond the 
conclusion statements. This situation leaves 
clinicians to press on into a review of other 
literature for the answers they seek. In turn, the 
EBP process is lengthened and may leave 
clinicians frustrated as they fall back on their 
clinical expertise with the failure of the EBP 
process. 
 
To enhance the uptake of systematic reviews and 
meta-analyses, there is a need to reduce the 
barriers and enhance the clinical applicability of 
findings by enhancing knowledge-translation 
resources available to clinicians. Simplistically, 
these resources can take on the form of summaries 
that layout the systematic reviews take-home 
messages in layman’s terms while adding value by 
evaluating the quality of the review, assessing the 
findings’ applicability, and providing 
recommendations for adoption and translation.9 
The Evidence-to-Practice Review (ETPR) 
manuscript type for Clinical Practice in Athletic 
Training provides an innovative format for 
knowledge-translation. ETPRs are short and 
digestible reviews of timely and relevant 
systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the 
focus on clinical applicability. The reviews provide 
a non-threatening, focused, and concise entryway 
into the evidence for the practicing clinician. 
Additionally, ETPRs focus on clinical translation of 
information as they are is designed to give 
actionable steps and organized resources for 
continued exploration, ultimately leading to 
enhancing knowledge and application into clinical 
practice.  
 
The goal of research is to provide information that 
can directly impact clinical practice and inform 
practices such as quality improvement and 
practice-based research. Individual research 
investigations are often nuanced in ways that limit 
generalizability without the combination of 
multiple investigations. Meanwhile, systematic 
reviews often lack the detail needed to allow for 

easy translation and application of summary 
findings into clinical practice. Knowledge-
translation resources, like the ETRP, provide a 
bridge between individual investigations and 
systematic reviews. ETRP can provide summaries 
of the evidence in combination with specific 
protocol recommendations and details needed to 
inform practice-based research and quality 
improvement initiatives. Initiatives that are 
imperative as the profession of athletic training 
aims prove that we have fulfilled our social 
contract with the public of providing safe, 
effective, and timely health care for our patients.2 
I encourage all to engage with knowledge-
translation resources, such as the ETPR, and to 
allow these innovative resources to facilitate the 
EBP process within their clinical practice.  
 
REFERENCES: 
 
1. Commission on Accreditation of Athletic 

Training Education. 2020 Standards for 
Accreditation of Professional Athletic Training 
Programs.  https://caate.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/2020-
Standards-for-Professional-Programs-
copyedited-clean.pdf. Accessed October 26, 
2020. 

2. McKeon PO, McKeon JMM, Geisler PR. 
Redefining professional knowledge in 
athletic training: whose knowledge is it 
anyway? Athl Train Ed J. 2017;12(2):95-
105. https://doi.org/10.4085/120295.   

3. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, 
Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based 
medicine: what it is and what it isn't. In: 
British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 
1996. 

4. Steves R, Hootman JM. Evidence-based 
medicine: what is it and how does it apply to 
athletic training? J Athl Train. 2004;39(1):83. 

5. Manspeaker SA, Hankemeier DA. Retained 
knowledge and use of evidence-based 
practice concepts. Athl Train Ed J. 
2018;13(3):239-247. 
https://doi.org/10.4085/1303239.  

https://caate.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2020-Standards-for-Professional-Programs-copyedited-clean.pdf
https://caate.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2020-Standards-for-Professional-Programs-copyedited-clean.pdf
https://caate.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2020-Standards-for-Professional-Programs-copyedited-clean.pdf
https://caate.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2020-Standards-for-Professional-Programs-copyedited-clean.pdf
https://doi.org/10.4085/120295
https://doi.org/10.4085/1303239


Translating Evidence to Practice in Athletic Training  

 

 
3 
 

Copyright © Indiana State University   Clinical Practice in Athletic Training 
ISSN Online 2577-8188    Volume 3 – Issue 3 – November 2020 
 

6. McCarty CW, Hankemeier DA, Walter JM, 
Newton EJ, Van Lunen BL. Use of evidence-
based practice among athletic training 
educators, clinicians, and students, part 2: 
attitudes, beliefs, accessibility, and barriers. 
J Athl Train. 2013;48(3):405-415. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.4085%2F1062-
6050-48.2.19.  

7. Welch CE, Hankemeier DA, Wyant AL, Hays 
DG, Pitney WA, Van Lunen BL. Future 
directions of evidence-based practice in 
athletic training: perceived strategies to 
enhance the use of evidence-based practice. 
J Athl Train. 2014;49(2):234-244. 
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-
48.2.19.  

8. Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, 
Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K. Maximizing the 
impact of systematic reviews in health care 
decision making: a systematic scoping review 
of knowledge‐translation resources. The 
Milbank Quarterly. 2011;89(1):131-156. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0009.2011.00622.x.  

9. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of 
systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS 
Med. 2009;6(11):e1000141. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.100
0141.  

 
 

 

https://dx.doi.org/10.4085%2F1062-6050-48.2.19
https://dx.doi.org/10.4085%2F1062-6050-48.2.19
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.2.19
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.2.19
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00622.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00622.x
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141

