Association between pattern of team sport participation from adolescence to young adulthood and mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined relationships between pattern of team sport participation during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood (ie, non-participants, initiators, discontinuers, sustainers) and indicators of mental health. Data on team sport participation and mental health from high school to young adulthood were drawn from the longitudinal NDIT study. After controlling for demographics, physical activity, and previous mental health, one-way MANCOVA and ANCOVAs indicated that pattern of team sport participation was associated with stress, F(2,706) =8.28, p < .01, and coping, F(2,706) = 10.66, p < .01 in young adulthood. Compared to non-participants (24% of sample) or those who discontinued team sport after adolescence (51%), individuals who sustained team sport participation from adolescence to young adulthood (22%) reported lower stress and better coping levels. Bivariate regression analysis indicated that, compared to non-participants, team sport sustainers were less likely to experience panic disorder symptoms (OR =0.57, 95% CI [0.34, 0.94], p = .03). There were too few team sport initiators (2%) to be included in analyses. Sustained team sport participation during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood may promote better mental health. Further research is needed to ascertain causality and develop strategies to encourage individuals to join sport teams during adolescence and sustain participation while transitioning to young adulthood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".