MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3016101279 · doi:10.1080/10413200.2020.1753263

Student-athlete disclosures of psychological distress: Exploring the experiences of university coaches and athletes

2020· article· en· W3016101279 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Applied Sport Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueSport Psychology and Performance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAthletesCoachingPsychologyDistressThematic analysisMental toughnessPsychological distressClinical psychologyApplied psychologyMental healthQualitative researchPsychotherapistPhysical therapyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Student-athletes are suggested to be an at-risk population for experiencing psychological distress, and coaches have been identified as support providers for distressed athletes. However, little is known about the interactions between student-athletes and their coaches when athletes disclose psychological distress. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to explore the experiences of student-athletes disclosing psychological distress to university coaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 student-athletes (2 male, 13 female; Mage = 24.5 years) and 15 university coaches (11 male, 4 female; Mage = 41.9 years). Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Results indicated that perceived barriers (emphasis on athlete toughness, power of coaches, athlete’s position on a team, poor visibility of distress, and previous negative experiences with disclosure) discouraged student-athletes from disclosing distress and suggest that barriers may be overcome by coaches fostering supportive team cultures. Strategies for coaches to establish supportive team cultures were identified, such as building diverse coaching staff, using nondiscriminatory language, and role-modeling desired behaviors. Based on the findings, guidelines are provided for effective coach support following disclosure. This research suggests that coaches have the potential to positively influence student-athletes’ disclosures of psychological distress and facilitate the process of athletes seeking help; however, clearer boundaries need to be established to govern the appropriate role of coaches in supporting psychologically distressed student-athletes. Lay Summary We examined experiences of student-athlete disclosures of psychological distress to university coaches. Barriers, such as previous negative experiences with disclosure, perceptions of athlete toughness, and the athlete’s position on the team, prevented athletes from disclosing distress. Strategies for coaches to create cultures that support athlete help-seeking behaviors are presented.Implications for Practice:As a frontline preventative measure in supporting the psychological well-being of student-athletes, coaches should establish team cultures that address perceived barriers to disclosure and encourage athlete help seeking behaviors. Coaches may foster desired team cultures by applying recommendations made by the present research, such as adopting a holistic coaching philosophy, speaking openly with athletes about psychological distress, and providing transparent selection criteria.When working with psychologically distressed student-athletes, coaches should engage in immediate, short-, and long-term support practices inclusive of responding supportively to athletes’ initial disclosures, assisting athletes in developing plans for managing their distress, and maintaining consistent communication and engagement with the athlete throughout the recovery process.Coaches should prioritize the development of coach-athlete relationships founded on trust and bidirectional communication with student-athletes to facilitate student-athletes’ willingness and abilities to disclose distress and access early support.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,251
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,647

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,068
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle