Advancing gender equity in sport: a scoping review of international sport federation policies for pregnant, postpartum and parenting elite athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to synthesise international-level sport policies for pregnant, postpartum or parenting high-performance athletes in order to understand what policies currently exist and to identify policy gaps to be addressed. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov) and Google up to 14 June 2024. Additionally, a targeted search of existing policies was conducted via the websites of International Federations (IFs) and continental sporting organisations (CSOs) in September 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included policies from IFs recognised by the International Olympic Committee, and CSOs associated with the IFs that specifically address pregnant, postpartum or parenting athletes. Policies were a written principle of action adopted by the IFs/CSOs that provided any form of support during pregnancy, post partum or for parents. RESULTS: A total of 219 organisations (49 IFs; 170 CSOs) were identified and contacted, with 47/49 (96%) IFs and 15/170 (9%) CSOs responding. Sport policies related to pregnancy, postpartum or parenting athletes were identified from 20 IFs including (1) guidance on training/competition during and following pregnancy; (2) eligibility affected or training not advised; (3) protection from dismissal; (4) special rank, points or quota protection; (5) protections apply to adoption, surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth, egg freezing and/or fertility treatment; (6) duration of leave and if leave is paid and (7) breastfeeding support/space. No policies identified specific provisions for childcare support/space. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of all IFs have developed sport policies to support pregnant, postpartum and parenting athletes. Of the policies that do exist, most are limited in the extent to which they address the broad range of biopsychosocial supports that are necessary for facilitating optimal performance, enhancing long-term athlete health and addressing gender inequities that are deeply entrenched across all levels of sport. This review provides a critical piece of evidence needed to inform future policy development.
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 | 0.029 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".