Informing evidence-based policy for sport-related concussion: are the consensus statements of the concussion in sport group fit for this purpose?

This essay explores how evidence-based policy can be developed for sport-related concussion (SRC), focusing particularly on the role and influence of the Consensus Statements of the Concussion in Sport Group (CiSG). Three credible policy purposes are suggested: (i) to mitigate acute health impacts of concussion events in sport; (ii) to reduce or eliminate the identified causes of SRC (direct blows to the head, neck, or body); and (iii) to improve long-term brain health outcomes for athletes. Eight of ten systematic reviews commissioned for the most recent Consensus Statement, and ten of its thirteen headings, address the first purpose. The primary influence of the CiSG Consensus Statements has been to improve SRC acute response practice and protocols in professional/elite sport, which has always been their primary policy purpose, although evidence of improvement is more limited in child/adolescent and recreational sport. But a primary focus on mitigating acute health impacts has crowded out other credible policy purposes of concern to stakeholder groups with whom evidence-based policy for SRC must be co-produced. No recommendations are made to improve long-term brain outcomes for athletes because concerns about imperfections in evidence are cited to question the link between such outcomes and SRC. Modifications to reduce or eliminate purposive blows to the head, neck, or body that are permitted as a structural part of the way some sports are played are given very limited attention, even when discussing prevention, where they are just one approach considered alongside protective equipment, neuromuscular strengthening, and concussion management strategies. The essay concludes that the CiSG should shift the primary policy purpose of its Consensus Statements to address the identified causes of SRC: purposive blows to the head, neck, or body. Reducing or removing causes of SRC both better safeguards children/adolescents and renders debates about the link between SRC and long-term brain health outcomes superfluous.