Contributors to negative biopsychosocial health or performance outcomes in rugby players (CoNBO): a systematic review and Delphi study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of contributors that can result in negative player outcomes in sport and the feasibility and barriers to modifying these to optimise player health and well-being have yet to be established. Within rugby codes (rugby league, rugby union and rugby sevens), within male and female cohorts across playing levels (full-time senior, part-time senior, age grade), this project aims to develop a consensus on contributors to negative biopsychosocial outcomes in rugby players (known as the CoNBO study) and establish stakeholder perceived importance of the identified contributors and barriers to their management. This project will consist of three parts; part 1: a systematic review, part 2: a three-round expert Delphi study and part 3: stakeholder rating of feasibility and barriers to management. Within part 1, systematic searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL) will be performed. The systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO. Studies will be searched to identify physical, psychological and/or social factors resulting in negative player outcomes in rugby. Part 2 will consist of a three-round expert Delphi consensus study to establish additional physical, psychological and/or social factors that result in negative player outcomes in rugby and their importance. In part 3, stakeholders (eg, coaches, chief executive officers and players) will provide perceptions of the feasibility and barriers to modifying the identified factors within their setting. On completion, several manuscripts will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this project have worldwide relevance for stakeholders in the rugby codes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022346751.
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 | 0.162 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.007 |
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".