Associations between adolescent organized sport participation and self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport participation may protect against mental health problems that are increasingly prevalent among adolescents. Specifically, sport integrates physical activity behavior and supportive social influences with peers and communities, which are both independently beneficial to mental health. We conducted a systematic review to explore the association between adolescent organized sport participation and self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Upon systematically screening 9,955 records, 29 unique articles were identified and selected; including 61 unique effect sizes and a total of 122,056 participants. Effect sizes were clustered into four categories based on how sport involvement was operationalized: (a) absence or presence of sport involvement, (b) frequency of sport involvement, (c) number of sport teams or the amount of times involved in sport, and (d) duration of sport participation. Results revealed that self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression were significantly lower among youth who were involved in sport, compared to those who were not involved, although the meta-analytic effect size was relatively small in magnitude. Metaregressions uncovered instances where heterogeneity in effects was partially explained by sample age and sex. Whereas these effects do not uncover a causal effect of sport involvement, they support theorizing that adolescent sport participation can have a protective effect on mental health.?
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".