Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27563528›Full record

ReviewSpringerPlus2016

Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review.

Cornelia Blank, Martin Kopp, Martin Niedermeier, Martin Schnitzer, Wolfgang Schobersberger

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cornelia BlankInstitute for Sports Medicine, Alpine Medicine & Health Tourism, UMIT, Eduard-Wallnöfer-Zentrum 1, 6060 Hall in Tyrol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5913-0251
Martin KoppDepartment of Sport Science, University Innsbruck, Fürstenweg 185, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Martin NiedermeierDepartment of Sport Science, University Innsbruck, Fürstenweg 185, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Martin SchnitzerDepartment of Sport Science, University Innsbruck, Fürstenweg 185, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Wolfgang SchobersbergerInstitute for Sports Medicine, Alpine Medicine & Health Tourism, UMIT, Eduard-Wallnöfer-Zentrum 1, 6060 Hall in Tyrol, Austria ; Tirol Kliniken GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.
Universität Innsbruck · ATTirol Kliniken · ATUMIT - Private Universität für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Medizinische Informatik und Technik · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research in doping has focused on potential intervention strategies, increasingly targeting predicting factors. Yet, findings are inconsistent, mostly athlete-centred and explain only limited variances in behaviour. This critical review aims to (a) summarize studies that identified predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour in elite athletes and to (b) analyse in how far previous research included aspects beyond athlete-centred approaches, such as context and sporting culture. We reviewed 14 studies that focused on elite athletes. Situational temptation, attitudes, and subjective norms seem to be strong predicting variables of doping intentions (r ≥ 0.50), but intention was no predictor for behaviour. Attitudes were a significant predictor for both, doping susceptibility (r = 0.47) and behaviour (r = 0.30). Most of the predictors are athlete-centred and ignore macro-level factors that might help to explain how certain individual traits impact on the decision making process. The findings from this review call for a critical discussion of whether current doping-prevention research needs to take new directions. We propose future research to bridge findings of psychologists and sociologists, as it appears that doping behaviour cannot be explained by ignoring the one or the other. Impacts of sporting culture that have been identified in qualitative approaches need to be integrated in future quantitative approaches to test for its external validity. Inclusion of both, micro- and macro level factors may enable an integrative prevention program that creates a sporting culture without doping.

Indexed as

Doping preventionMacro-levelMicro-levelSporting culture

Identifiers

PMID27563528
PMCPMC4980857
OpenAlexW2507475638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.