Exploring the experiences of high performance Canadian athletes with mood and/or anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Until recently, it was widely assumed that mood and anxiety disorders were not common medical problems for high performance athletes (e.g., Dean & Rowan, 2013; Markser, 2011; Reardon & Factor, 2010). However, as athletes come forward to share their struggles with mental illness, this assumption has been brought into question. Very little research has focused on mood and anxiety disorders in high performance athletes; what is known comes primarily from mass media and popular culture (e.g., Hughes, 2015; Marino, 2013). The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of high performance Canadian athletes with mood and/or anxiety disorders. Methods: Three athletes were recruited via purposeful sampling. Athletes currently or recently competed for places on Canadian national sports teams. Athletes participated in semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions related to their sporting careers and how they coped with being a high performance athlete and having a mood/anxiety disorder Results: Participants described dealing with stigma related to their diagnoses. Initially, treatment took a back seat to training and competition; ultimately, participants required a break from sport in order to effectively manage their illness. Participants expressed a need for education in the sport community regarding mood/anxiety disorders as well as greater access to psychologists for high performance athletes. Discussion: Findings are discussed within the context of existing research on high performance sport and mood/anxiety disorders. Preliminary implications include the development and evaluation of education programs to decrease stigma, coupled with increases in funding for available resources for mood and anxiety disorders in the sport community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".