ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2019
Mobile Athlete Self-Report Measures and the Complexities of Implementation.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Single-Item Self-Report Measures of Team-Sport Athlete Wellbeing and Their Relationship With Training Load: A Systematic Review.Journal of athletic training · 2020Pooled it
- Mobile Health (mHealth) Apps in Sport Training: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Breaking down the Digital Fortress: The Unseen Challenges in Healthcare Technology-Lessons Learned from 10 Years of Research.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent practice in athlete monitoring has seen the development and implementation of customized, digital Athlete Self-Report Measures or Mobile Athlete Self-Report Measures (M-ASRM) across various sport settings, including amateur sports such as Gaelic Games. Successful implementation of M-ASRM requires significant consideration of the use context and limitations therein, an investment of time and expertise by staff and buy-in from key stakeholders, yet there is limited evidence of these considerations being applied in practice. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perceptions regarding the implementation processes and understanding of a pre-existing M-ASRM in elite Gaelic Games. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the use of a topic guide to explore the rationale, introduction and use of M-ASRM. Participants were 21 M-ASRM users in elite Gaelic Games (players n = 10, coaches and support staff n = 11), from 15 teams. Thematic analysis was conducted collaboratively by two authors, adopting an inductive approach and coding the transcripts using NVivo 12 software. Four higher-order themes were formed from the data: (1) clarity of purpose; (2) implementation strategies; (3) players perceptions of use and (4) perceived facilitators of M-ASRM use. The results of this study demonstrate a significant underestimation of the practical requirements for successful implementation of an M-ASRM by users in elite Gaelic Games. Recommendations are made for implementation and best practice use, including shared decision-making, evidence-based education strategies, structured feedback channels and improved planning with regards to feasibility and responsibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31427861PMC6683625What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.