MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413007222 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2025-109958

Health promotion in elite Para sport: bridging knowledge gaps and addressing individual needs—a qualitative evaluation of the Safe and Healthy Para sport (SHAPE) intervention

2025· article· en· W4413007222 on OpenAlexaff
Eirik Halvorsen Wik, Göran Kenttä, Marelise Badenhorst, Wayne Derman, Maaike M. Eken, Lovemore Kunorozva, Jan Lexell, Phoebe Runciman, Kristina Fagher

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCentrum för idrottsforskningStiftelsen Promobilia
KeywordsThematic analysisHealth promotionAthletesFocus groupIntervention (counseling)Qualitative researchMedical educationPerceptionApplied psychologyPromotion (chess)PsychologyElite athletesMedicineNursingPhysical therapyPublic healthPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively explore the perceptions of Para athletes, coaches and stakeholders of the implementation, use and effects of the health promotion intervention 'Safe and Healthy Para sport' (SHAPE). A secondary aim was to explore participants' perceptions of how safety and health in Para sport could be further developed. METHODS: As part of a process evaluation, this qualitative, descriptive study applied a thematic analysis approach. In total, 18 participants (athletes, coaches and staff) from Sweden and South Africa participated in three focus groups. RESULTS: Three themes were generated from the focus groups: 'how to reach every Para athlete in implementation and use', 'proactive athlete growth and support', and 'opportunities for sustainable Para sport'. Participants perceived that the SHAPE intervention was end-user friendly and that it was difficult to find health promotion material for Para athletes elsewhere. Athletes had used the health information to recover from injuries, and their awareness of mental health conditions had increased. Athletes also identified a need for more individualised content, but some athletes were not aware of the health platform. It was suggested that health promotion in Para sport could be better facilitated by peer support. The weekly athlete health monitoring fostered a sense of accountability both among athletes and within the sports organisation, but participants still perceived that medical evaluations are mostly neglected in Para sport and voiced a need to strengthen medical and economic support structures. CONCLUSION: Health promotion can be used to improve health and well-being among Para athletes. However, it was challenging to reach out to the individual athlete, suggesting that health promotion should be implemented in each layer of the socioecological model within Para sport.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→