Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31214978›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

The Translation of Sport Science Research to the Field: A Current Opinion and Overview on the Perceptions of Practitioners, Researchers and Coaches.

Hugh H K Fullagar, Alan McCall, Franco M Impellizzeri, Terry Favero, Aaron J Coutts

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Conducting transformative research protocols in sports science.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    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.

Hugh H K FullagarSport and Exercise Discipline Group, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Hugh.Fullagar@uts.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9426-5373
Alan McCallArsenal Football Club, London, UK.
Franco M ImpellizzeriSport and Exercise Discipline Group, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Terry FaveroBiology Department, University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA.
Aaron J CouttsSport and Exercise Discipline Group, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the collated integration of practitioner expertise, athlete values and research evidence aimed to optimise the decision-making process surrounding sport performance. Despite the academic interest afforded to sport science research, our knowledge of how this research is applied in elite sport settings is limited. This current opinion examines the existing evidence of the translation of sport science research into the field, with a tailored focus on the current perceptions of practitioners, researchers and coaches. Recent studies show that practitioners and researchers report they ascertain sport science knowledge differently, with coaches preferring personal interactions compared with coaching courses or scientific journals. The limited peer-reviewed research shows that coaches perceive their knowledge is greater in fields such as tactical/technical areas, rather than physical fitness or general conditioning. This likely explains coaches' greater perceived value in research dedicated to technical and tactical expertise, as well as mental training and skill acquisition. Practitioners place a large emphasis on the need for research in physical fitness areas, which is likely due to their occupational focus. There are many perceived barriers of sport science research application, including funding, time, coach/player/staff 'buy in' and research questions that may not apply to the setting. We contend that researchers and practitioners may benefit in producing research, ascertaining knowledge and disseminating findings in alternative methods that better align with coaches' needs. In addition, educational strategies that focus on real-world context and promote social interaction between coaches, practitioners, organisational personnel and researchers would likely benefit all stakeholders.

Indexed as

SportsAthletesHumansInformation DisseminationKnowledgePhysical Education and TrainingResearch

Identifiers

PMID31214978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.