The Role of the DAT in the Future of Athletic Training Education

Abstract

As the profession of athletic training has evolved over the past 25 years, the work settings where clinicians practice have greatly expanded. Historically, the profession of athletic training had always been linked to the provision of the care of injuries suffered by athletes in the secondary school, collegiate, and professional sports settings. As such, as recently as the early 1990s, practitioners were limited in their employment options to practicing in one of these “traditional athletic settings.” During this time in the profession’s evolution, educational programs rightfully focused their attention on athletic injury prevention and care. Courses pertaining to pathophysiology, pharmacology, clinical imaging, psychosocial aspects of care, manual therapy, and other staples of health care were absent from the athletic training educational landscape. Faculty teaching in these athletic training curricula generally possessed master’s degrees and either served in dual roles as faculty-clinicians or were full-time faculty members who had navigated their way through the collegiate setting into academia by initially serving as clinical athletic trainers. As a result, athletic training educators brought a tremendous amount of practical knowledge to the classroom from their experiences in the (collegiate) athletic setting and served their students well in preparing them to practice athletic medicine in a “traditional athletic training setting.” By the late 1990s, athletic trainers began finding employment in practice settings that included rehabilitation clinics, industry, and physician offices. In 1997, the first athletic training educational reform brought an end to the internship model of education, ushering in athletic training curricula that began to focus more heavily on the provision of health care services beyond just the care of athletes in the traditional settings.1 The landmark reform required that pathophysiology and pharmacology be added to athletic training educational programs and that students have increased exposure to various practice settings outside athletics. For the first time, students were required to complete at least minimal exposure to “general medicine.” By now, many athletic training educators possessed terminal degrees and had moved into full-time positions in academia. However, because most educators had been educated and practiced in the traditional athletic setting, transitioning curricula to include these courses and clinical experiences often proved challenging. As we moved into the 21st century, the profession of athletic training experienced a metamorphosis The Role of the DAT in the Future of Athletic Training Education