Beneath the Surface: Mental Health and Harassment and Abuse of Athletes Participating in the FINA (Aquatics) World Championships, 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the mental health and experience of sport-related harassment and abuse of elite aquatic athletes and to analyze it in relation to gender and discipline. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using an anonymous survey. SETTING: The FINA World Championships 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Registered athletes in the disciplines of swimming, diving, high diving, water polo, artistic swimming, and open water swimming. INTERVENTIONS: Athletes completed an online or paper-based questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures included screening for depression (10-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale revised), eating disorders (Brief Eating Disorders in Athletes Questionnaire), the subjective need for psychotherapeutic support, and the experience of sport-related harassment and/or abuse. RESULTS: A quarter (24.6%) of the 377 responding athletes were classified as depressed and 2.5% as having an eating disorder. More than 40% of the athletes stated that they wanted or needed psychotherapeutic support. Fifty-one athletes (14.9%) had experienced harassment/abuse in sport themselves, and 31 (9%) had witnessed it in another athlete. The experiences of harassment and abuse ranged from unwanted comments about body or appearance (40.2%) to rewards in sport for sexual favors (2.5%) and rape (0.3%). Athletes who had experienced harassment/abuse in sport themselves had higher average scores for depression and eating disorders, and more of them felt they needed psychotherapeutic support. Up to a third would not talk or report to anybody if they saw or experienced harassment/abuse, and less than 20% would talk to an official for help. CONCLUSION: Targeted initiatives are required to address mental health issues and harassment and abuse in sport in the FINA aquatic disciplines.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".