6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Impacts of Sports Schools on Holistic Athlete Development: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To understand the multiple and wide-ranging impacts of intensified youth sport, the need for a holistic approach to athlete development has recently been advocated. Sports schools are an increasingly popular operationalisation of intensified youth sport, aiming to offer an optimal environment for holistic development by combining sport and education. Yet, no study has systematically explored the impacts associated with sports schools.

          Objectives

          The aims of this mixed method systematic review were to (1) determine the characteristics and features of sports schools; (2) identify the methods used to evaluate sports school impacts, and (3) evaluate the positive and negative holistic athlete development impacts associated with sports school programme involvement.

          Methods

          Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, eight electronic databases were searched until the final return in February 2021. Forty-six articles satisfied the inclusion criteria, were analysed thematically, and synthesised using a narrative approach. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

          Results

          Findings indicated (1) sports school student-athletes receive considerable support in terms of academic and athletic services, more intensified training and competition schedules with high-level training partners, but regularly miss school; (2) multiple methods have been used to evaluate student-athlete impacts, making comparison across studies and developing consensus on the impacts of sports schools difficult; and (3) there are a multitude of immediate, short- and long-term positive and negative impacts associated with the academic/vocational, athletic/physical, psychosocial and psychological development of sports school student-athletes.

          Conclusions

          This study is the first to systematically review the research literature to understand the impacts associated with sports schools in terms of holistic athlete development. Practitioners should be aware that they can promote (positive) and negate (negative) health impacts through the design of an appropriate learning environment that simultaneously balances multiple training, academic, psychosocial and psychological factors that can be challenging for youth athletes. We recommend that practitioners aim to design and implement monitoring and evaluation tools that assess the holistic development of student-athletes within their sports schools to ensure they are promoting all-round and healthy youth athlete development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references120

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods

              As with other fields, medical sciences are subject to different sources of bias. While understanding sources of bias is a key element for drawing valid conclusions, bias in health research continues to be a very sensitive issue that can affect the focus and outcome of investigations. Information bias, otherwise known as misclassification, is one of the most common sources of bias that affects the validity of health research. It originates from the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements. This paper seeks to raise awareness of information bias in observational and experimental research study designs as well as to enrich discussions concerning bias problems. Specifying the types of bias can be essential to limit its effects and, the use of adjustment methods might serve to improve clinical evaluation and health care practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ffion.thompson@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
                Journal
                Sports Med
                Sports Med
                Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.z.)
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0112-1642
                1179-2035
                9 March 2022
                9 March 2022
                2022
                : 52
                : 8
                : 1879-1917
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.10346.30, ISNI 0000 0001 0745 8880, Carnegie School of Sport, , Leeds Beckett University, ; Leeds, UK
                [2 ]Queen Ethelburga’s College, Thorpe Underwood, York, UK
                [3 ]Leeds Rhinos Rugby League Club, Leeds, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.10346.30, ISNI 0000 0001 0745 8880, Carnegie School of Sport, , Leeds Beckett University, ; Room G07, Cavendish Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5515-7633
                Article
                1664
                10.1007/s40279-022-01664-5
                9325842
                35260992
                b855f99a-5296-4384-b64f-a9c245bf9989
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 February 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008567, Leeds Beckett University;
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

                Comments

                Comment on this article