Health promotion by International Olympic Sport Federations: priorities and barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify changes in International Federations’ priorities and the barriers to implementing athlete and global health initiatives. Results should influence the work of the International Federation medical committees, the IOC and the Association of Summer Olympic International Federation. Methods The 28 Summer and 7 Winter International Federations participating in the most recent Olympic Games (2016; 2018) were surveyed to (i) identify the importance of 27 health topics, (ii) assess their progress on implementation health-related programmes and (iii) the barriers to implementation of these programmes. We compared International Federations’ activities in 2016 and 2017. Results The response rate was 83%. Health topics which most International Federations regarded as important and in which the International Federations felt insufficiently active were ‘team physician certification’, ‘prevention of harassment and abuse’, ‘eating disorders/disordered eating’, ‘mental health’ and ‘injury surveillance’. Compared with 2016, there was a decrease in International Federations’ activities in ‘injury surveillance’, ‘nutritional supplements’ and ‘hyperandrogenism’. The main barrier to implementing health-related programmes was ‘International Federation political support/willingness’, followed by ‘knowledge’. ‘Time’ and ‘coach support’ were more often reported than ‘finances’, or ‘IOC or Association of Summer Olympic International Federations partnership’. Conclusion If International Federations are going to promote health of athletes and global health promotion through physical activity (sport), International Federation leadership must change their focus and provide greater political support for related initiatives. Improving coach and athlete knowledge of the health issues could also facilitate health programme delivery. Time constraints could be mitigated by sharing experiences among the International Federations, Association of Summer Olympic International Federations and the IOC. International Federations should focus on those health-related topics that they identified as being important, yet rate as having insufficient activity.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".