What would you do? Developing, implementing and evaluating a coach bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence in youth sports clubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With current estimates of up to one in three children experiencing some form of sexual violence in sports, the need for effective measures to prevent sexual violence in sports is high. Survivors’ narratives of sexual violence in sports uncover the lack of (adequate) bystander action and the urgent need for stakeholder education to effectively prevent sexual violence in youth sports. This study presents the “All Aboard” educational program, targeting youth sports coaches in Flanders (Belgium). The program aimed to stimulate the intentions of youth coaches to engage in positive bystander behavior to adequately detect, assess, and respond to signs of sexual violence toward young athletes. After two pilot studies, this program was implemented in nine Flemish sports clubs. Coaches’ readiness to change, intentions and attitudes, perceived norms, and perceived behavioral control were measured before and after they participated in the program using the “And what would you do?” questionnaire, constructed according to the Reasoned Action Approach. After the program, positive change was found in coaches’ intentions to be a positive bystander, e.g., they acknowledged the value of being a positive bystander, felt more comfortable being a positive bystander and believed that doing so would improve the situation. This article is one of the first to report on an evidence-based intervention program to prevent sexual violence in sports by fostering positive attitudes toward positive bystander behaviors by coaches. Opportunities and challenges of implementing education to prevent sexual violence in local sports clubs are discussed.Lay summary: Sexual violence is very common in youth sports and therefore education about this topic is crucial. The “All Aboard” program teaches youth coaches how to act as a positive bystander in the detection and response to situations of sexual violence. The program has successfully improved coaches’ attitudes and willingness to intervene.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".