ReviewBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2021
Rethinking innovation and the role of stakeholder engagement in sport and exercise medicine.
Review in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contributors to negative biopsychosocial health or performance outcomes in rugby players (CoNBO): a systematic review and Delphi study protocol.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Setting the research agenda for Council of Southern Africa Football Associations (COSAFA) women's football: stakeholder perspectives.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Monitoring health and wellbeing in adolescent track and field (athletics) athletes: A co-creation study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Performance and Wellbeing Research Priorities in Premiership Women's Rugby: A Delphi Study Including Players and Staff.European journal of sport science · 2026Article
- 'We're All (Cauliflower) Ears': A Delphi Study Including Staff and Players to Co-Construct Sports Science and Medicine (Performance and Wellbeing) Research Priorities for Premiership Rugby.European journal of sport science · 2025Article
- Innovation in sport medicine and science: a global social network analysis of stakeholder collaboration in rugby union.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- University and stakeholder partnerships to innovate in sport - the development of the South African Cricketers' Association (SACA) career transition screening tool.South African journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Applied sports science and sports medicine in women's rugby: systematic scoping review and Delphi study to establish future research priorities.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022Article
- Cocreating injury prevention training for youth team handball: bridging theory and practice.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022Article
- Assessing the Acceptability of a Co-Produced Long COVID Intervention in an Underserved Community in the UK.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In sport and exercise medicine, increasing pressure to improve athlete health outcomes and performance with limited resources has prompted an emphasis on innovation. A key component to innovation is stakeholder participation and engagement, that is, the involvement of those affected by the outcomes, such as end users and actors (the person(s) performing the required actions/behaviour change), of the research process. Several research frameworks in sport and exercise medicine highly recommend stakeholder engagement as part of the research process. There are, however, different levels to how engaged a stakeholder can be in a research project, and this level of engagement may be dependent on the researchers' goals. Stakeholder engagement can be organised on a continuum based on the stakeholder's relationship to the research and how involved they are in the project's decision-making process. This continuum can be used as a rating scale to evaluate and monitor the degree of perceived stakeholder participation in a research project. There are different paths to innovation in research, which are interlinked, and ideas and knowledge flow between them. Considering the continuum of stakeholder engagement and paths to innovation, this article highlights how different research types require different degrees of stakeholder engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.