Developing eating disorder psychoeducation resources for coaches: Understanding the needs of coaches across sports and levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorders (EDs) and disordered eating (DE) are prevalent among athletes and can have significant consequences for physical health, mental health, and athletic performance. Coaches are uniquely positioned to identify at-risk athletes and direct them toward appropriate services, yet many coaches report lacking the knowledge and resources to do so. Despite this, limited research has explored how to design and disseminate DE/ED psychoeducation tailored to coaches’ needs. This study qualitatively examined coaches’ perspectives on their knowledge gaps, recommendations for early intervention resources, and perceived barriers to accessing DE/ED-related education. Fifteen coaches from both weight-sensitive and less weight-sensitive sports and various competition levels participated in semi-structured group or individual interviews. Qualitative content analysis revealed three main themes: (1) increasing coaches’ awareness of why early intervention is important and coaches’ potential role in early intervention; (2) addressing anxiety and discomfort intervening; and (3) the importance of practical information about identification, intervention, and management. This study is among the first to directly gather coaches’ insights on DE/ED-related knowledge gaps and resource development. Findings highlight the need for top-down delivery of resources tailored by sport type, athlete age, and competition level. Resources should aim to reduce stigma, build coaches’ confidence, and provide practical skills to support early intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".