Mental Health Literacy Workshop for Youth Sport Coaches: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among other responsibilities, youth sport coaches are positioned to monitor and address the mental health needs of their athletes. Despite this, there are limited interventions aimed at improving coaches’ mental health literacy. Using a mixed-methods design, the aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and mental health literacy outcomes associated with a brief (75 min) workshop for youth sport coaches. Fourteen coaches (13 males, one female) completed pre- and postworkshop surveys measuring indices of mental health literacy, and 10 of these same participants engaged in a semistructured interview 1-month later. Overall, coaches who participated in the pilot workshop reported significant improvements in depression literacy, intentions to seek self-help for oneself and their athletes, and knowledge and confidence to provide help. In addition, coaches reported positive impressions of the workshop during the follow-up interviews and provided concrete examples of program content application. An important suggestion made by coaches was the need to align the workshop content to governing policy. Taken together, this pilot mental health literacy workshop for youth sport coaches shows strong promise and is ready for large-scale dissemination.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".