Sports coaches’ perception of health promotion: an exploratory study regarding philosophies, actions, barriers, and strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As front-line players in sports clubs, coaches can create a positive context influencing athletes' health decisions and behaviours. However, coaches rarely engage in health promotion (HP) practices due to various obstacles. Coaching philosophy, encompassing beliefs, principles, and values, significantly influences coaches' practices. However, its impact on HP remains unexplored, are the main factor influencing coaches' practices, has not yet been studied in regard to HP. The aim of this study was to explore coaches' perceptions of what they define as health in relation to their coaching philosophies, actions and strategies they undertake in relation to HP, as well as alignment or discrepancies between these three elements. An exploratory mixed-method survey design (QUAL=>quan) was used in this study. A sample of 299 sports coaches in Europe completed an online survey, including closed ended questions on their influence on sports participants health behaviours, barriers for HP and open-ended questions on coaching philosophies and associated health benefits, keywords linked to health, and strategies for HP. Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis and multivariate statistics respectively. While coaches define health mainly through keywords related to physical health (e.g. 'hydration', 'recovery'), their perceived coaching philosophies were focused around nine themes, related to social and mental health, predominantly using participant management and communication as implementation strategies. Furthermore, they identified lack of time, knowledge and human resources as the main barriers to pay attention to HP. The present findings highlight a gap between how coaches define health, what they consider they can influence and how they promote health. Further work is needed to explore the paradox between coaches' definition of health and self-reported actions focusing mostly on social and mental health mostly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".