British Journal of Sports Medicine最新文献

Objectives: To co-construct a sports medicine and exercise science research and translational agenda with Team USA elite female athletes serving as the experts on their health, performance and well-being.

Methods: 40 Team USA female athletes across sports disciplines participated in an online, anonymous, modified Delphi survey by ranking topics on a Likert scale (1='strongly disagree' and 5='strongly agree') and providing qualitative justification regarding whether they believed having more information and research on each topic would support their athletic performance, health and well-being. After each Delphi round, quantitative rankings of topics and qualitative justifications were analysed, informing revisions to the list of topics for review in the subsequent round. Researchers provided athletes with a detailed report of findings and revisions following each round.

Results: The final list contained 14 ranked topics. The top five were menstrual cycle symptoms (4.58±0.74), recovery (4.58±0.59), birth control (4.55±0.89), mental health (4.50±0.55) and fueling and the menstrual cycle (4.43±0.74). New topics originating from athletes included recovery, menstrual cycle symptoms, fueling and the menstrual cycle, mental health and sports performance, team dynamics, and institutionalised sexism.

Conclusion: This is the first study to co-construct a research and translational agenda with Team USA elite female athletes. The list of sports science research topics developed by focusing on elite female athletes' voices lays the foundation for future research and provides valuable insight into the specific needs of female athletes.

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to examine the association of physical activity in parents with physical activity in their adult offspring and explore if the offspring's genetic liability (ie, polygenic risk score) to physical activity influences this association.

Methods: The Trøndelag Health Study cohort is a population-based longitudinal study with data collected in 1984-1986, 1995-1997, 2006-2008 and 2017-2019. We calculated the odds ratio for being physically active and mean difference in physical activity levels according to parental physical activity (device-measured and self-reported) and own polygenic risk score.

Results: Compared with offspring with mothers in the lowest third of metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-min/day accumulated by vigorous physical activities, offspring with mothers in the upper third had an OR of 1.93 (95% CI 1.65 to 2.27) for accumulating ≥900 MET-min/week of vigorous physical activity. The OR for the corresponding father-offspring association was 1.78 (95% CI 1.48 to 2.14). Compared with offspring of parents not accumulating ≥900 MET-min/week, we found an OR of 1.89 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.44) for offspring to meet the same threshold if both parents accumulated ≥900 MET-min/week. Offspring with higher polygenic risk score to bephysically active and having physically active parents did more weekly physical activity, but we found no strong evidence of multiplicative synergistic effects between these two factors (all p values ≥0.01).

Conclusion: Both parental physical activity and offspring's polygenic risk score were positively associated with physical activity levels in the adult offspring, but there was no evidence of effect modification between these factors. A family-based approach to promote physical activity may be effective from a public health perspective.

A perceived 'lack of time' is consistently the most commonly reported barrier to exercise. However, the term fails to capture the multifaceted nature of time-related factors. Recognising the need for a more comprehensive analysis of 'lack of time' as a barrier to exercise, the aim of this study was to develop the exercise participation explained in relation to time (EXPERT) model. The model was developed through a sequential process including (1) an umbrella literature review of time as a barrier, determinant, and correlate of physical activity; (2) a targeted review of existing temporal models; (3) drafting the model and refining it via discussions between eight authors; (4) a three-round Delphi process with eight panel members; and (5) consultations with seven experts and potential end-users. The final EXPERT model includes 31 factors within four categories: (1) temporal needs and preferences for exercise (ie, when and how long does an individual need/want to exercise), (2) temporal autonomy for exercise (ie, autonomy in scheduling free time for exercise), (3) temporal conditions for exercise (ie, available time for exercise) and (4) temporal dimensions of exercise (ie, use of time for exercise). Definitions, examples and possible survey questions are presented for each factor. The EXPERT model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the multi-dimensional nature of 'time' as it relates to exercise participation. It moves beyond the simplistic notion of 'lack of time' and delves into the complexity of time allocation in the context of exercise. Empirical and cross-cultural validations of the model are warranted.

Objective: To conduct a meta-analytic review of psychosocial predictors of doping intention, doping use and inadvertent doping in sport and exercise settings.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL Plus, ProQuest Dissertations/Theses and Open Grey.

Eligibility criteria: Studies (of any design) that measured the outcome variables of doping intention, doping use and/or inadvertent doping and at least one psychosocial determinant of those three variables.

Results: We included studies from 25 experiments (N=13 586) and 186 observational samples (N=3 09 130). Experimental groups reported lower doping intentions (g=-0.21, 95% CI (-0.31 to -0.12)) and doping use (g=-0.08, 95% CI (-0.14 to -0.03), but not inadvertent doping (g=-0.70, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.55)), relative to comparators. For observational studies, protective factors were inversely associated with doping intentions (z=-0.28, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.24), doping use (z=-0.09, 95% CI -0.13 to to -0.05) and inadvertent doping (z=-0.19, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.06). Risk factors were positively associated with doping intentions (z=0.29, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.32) and use (z=0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.19), but not inadvertent doping (z=0.08, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.22). Risk factors for both doping intentions and use included prodoping norms and attitudes, supplement use, body dissatisfaction and ill-being. Protective factors for both doping intentions and use included self-efficacy and positive morality.

Conclusion: This study identified several protective and risk factors for doping intention and use that may be viable intervention targets for antidoping programmes. Protective factors were negatively associated with inadvertent doping; however, the empirical volume is limited to draw firm conclusions.

Objectives: To assess the clinical competence of sports medicine physicians to recognise and report harassment and abuse in sports, and to identify barriers to reporting and the need for safeguarding education.

Methods: We implemented a cross-sectional cohort study design recruiting through social media and international sports medicine networks in 2023. The survey captured participant perceptions related to the harmfulness of harassment and abuse. The survey incorporated the reasoned action approach as a theoretical framework to design survey questions to identify attitudes and self-efficacy to detect and report suspicions of harassment and abuse and to identify barriers to reporting.

Results: Sports medicine physicians (n=406) from 115 countries completed the survey. The situations of harassment and abuse presented in the survey were described by sports medicine physicians as having occurred in the 12 months before participating in the survey. Despite recognising the situations as harmful, sports medicine physicians were somewhat uncomfortable being vigilant for the signs and symptoms and reporting suspicions and disclosures of harassment and abuse (M=2.13, SD=0.67). In addition, just over one-quarter (n=101, 26.9%) was unaware of where to report harassment and abuse, and over half did not know (n=114, 28.1%), or were uncertain (n=95, 23.4%) of who the safeguarding officer was in their sports organisation. Participants identified many barriers to reporting harassment and abuse, including concerns regarding confidentiality, misdiagnosis, fear of reprisals, time constraints and lack of knowledge. Over half felt insufficiently trained (n=223, 57.6%), and most respondents (n=324, 84.6%) desired more education in the field.

Conclusions: Educational programmes to better recognise and report harassment and abuse in sports are needed for sports medicine trainees and practising clinicians. An international safeguarding code for sports medicine physicians should be developed.