Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms During the COVID-19 Emergency Period: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study in Professional Football
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of our study was to establish the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among professional football (ie, soccer; hereinafter "football") players during the COVID-19 emergency period, drawing comparisons with players assessed before exposure to the COVID-19 emergency period. DESIGN: Observational comparative cross-sectional study by means of electronic questionnaire. SETTING: Professional football. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 468 female (mean age: 22.8 years) and 1134 male (mean age: 26.0 years) players participated. The non-COVID-19 comparison group consisted of 132 female (mean age: 23.1 years) and 175 male (mean age: 24.8 years) professional footballers. INTERVENTION: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anxiety symptoms were measured with the validated Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 and depressive symptoms with the validated Patient Health Questionnaire 9. Both instruments have been widely used in both clinical and research settings among different populations, showing excellent psychometric properties. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 emergency period, the 2-week prevalence of symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and depression was 18.2% and 21.6%, respectively, among female professional footballers and 15.5% and 12.9%, respectively, among male players. The 2-week prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among professional footballers was significantly higher during the COVID-19 emergency period than before the global pandemic (P < 0.01). Differences were most pronounced for those worried about the playing future. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 emergency period is associated with increased symptoms of anxiety and depression in professional footballers, especially among those worried about their future as players.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".