Examining the coach–athlete relationship for facilitators and barriers to healthy sport participation for cyclically menstruating athletes: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menstrual function is an integral component of the overall health and well-being of cyclically menstruating athletes, impacted by and affecting their participation in sport and athletic training. This review used the coach–athlete relationship to examine the sport environment for factors that facilitate or hinder healthy sport participation for cyclically menstruating athletes with respect to their menstrual cycles. Four databases were searched until June 30, 2023, for studies that explored the experiences, perceptions and knowledge related to the menstrual cycle among athletes training under a coach and coaches of cyclically menstruating athletes. The search produced 2511 studies, which, following screening for relevance and eligibility, resulted in 34 studies of moderate-to-high quality. Thematic synthesis and integration of qualitative and quantitative data from 7558 athletes and coaches from elite to amateur level uncovered 4 main themes pertaining to the coach–athlete relationship and the menstrual cycle that constituted barriers (menstruation taboo, lack of knowledge and awareness, and lack of communication among stakeholders) and facilitators (presence of female coaches, positive experiences of communicating about the menstrual cycle, and trust) to healthy sport participation. A final theme summarised the needs of athletes and coaches related to the menstrual cycle. Greater education, representation of females in sporting roles, and improved collaboration among the various stakeholders emerged as the primary factors for driving a culture-shift in the sporting environment, in order to abolish the taboo against menstruation and promote healthy sport participation for cyclically menstruating athletes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".