ArticleBMJ open2023
Confusion among doctors regarding sports and exercise medicine as a specialty: an Australian multidisciplinary, cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sports Medicine in Scandinavia: Academic Leadership Without a Consistent Clinical Specialty.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: the role of student conferences in advancing sport and exercise medicine in the medical school curricula.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Implementation of an international continuing health professions education programme in sports medicine: a process evaluation.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
- Physical Activity with Sports Scientist (PASS) programme to promote physical activity among patients with non-communicable diseases: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial protocol.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Defining the role of sport and exercise physicians: the experience of different referrer types in New Zealand.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis cross-sectional study aims to characterise the understanding and attitudes medical practitioners have towards sports and exercise medicine (SEM). By identifying knowledge gaps, misunderstandings and barriers to SEM referral, interventions may be suggested to improve the integration of SEM within a multidisciplinary approach to healthcare.
designA survey was constructed with a multidisciplinary expert panel. Refinement and consensus were achieved through a modified Delphi method. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analysed and intergroup comparisons made using χ
settingThe questionnaire was distributed across Australian public and private health sectors, in community and hospital-based settings.
participantsAustralian medical doctors practising in specialties likely to intersect with SEM were invited; including general practice, orthopaedics, emergency, rheumatology and anaesthetics/pain. Invitation was uncapped with no reportable response rate. A total of 120 complete responses were collected
resultsThe minority (42.5%) of respondents understood the role and scope of sports and exercise physicians. SEM was poorly recognised and comprehended, with the most common misconception being that SEM is solely for elite athletes and performance. Few (20%) doctors were familiar with referral pathways to SEM services. Lack of awareness, clear scope and public presence were seen as major barriers. There was near unanimous (92.5%) agreement that 'exercise is medicine'. A strong majority felt SEM would be valuable to collaborate with more in their current practice (63.3%) and as a part of the Australian public health system (82.5%). There were some significant differences among subgroups, including that junior doctors were more likely to express confusion about SEM.
conclusionsAmong non-SEM doctors, there is significant lack of clarity regarding the role of SEM and its optimal integration. Interdisciplinary education and addressing misconceptions may improve the contribution of SEM to community healthcare.
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.