A qualitative exploration of adolescent athletes' perspectives, awareness, and experiences related to doping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doping is a prevalent problem in sport, with athletes reporting using performance-enhancing substances (PES) as young as age 12. Adolescence is a high-risk period for initiating PES use because attitudes about doping are formed at this age. The purpose of this study was to explore adolescent athletes' perspectives, awareness, and experiences related to doping. Sixteen athletes (n = 7 male and n = 9 female), in grades 7 through 11, attended one of four focus groups. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed and coded into common themes. Our data revealed five main themes. First, the participants spoke about their prior knowledge about doping, which is mostly restricted to awareness of doping among professional athletes. Second, many did not consider doping to be a relevant issue for their age group or level of competition. Third, the athletes reported that their coaches and trainers seldom discuss doping and its associated risks. Fourth, adolescents viewed pressure from teammates or coaches as a significant reason for an athlete to start using PES. Finally, the athletes spoke about their perceptions of the primary deterrents to doping including; (a) the moral, emotional, or social consequences (mainly guilt) associated with doping or getting banned from sport, (b) the severe health consequences, including the development of tumours, heart problems, and death, and (c) the physical consequences associated with appearance, such as acne or gynecomastia. These findings provide insight about adolescent athletes' perspectives on doping, which has implications for developing primary prevention programs and educational resources for adolescent athletes. Acknowledgments: This research has been funded by the World Anti-Doping Agency: Social Sciences Research Grant
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".