ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2024
Comparing the healthy development of youth Australian Rules Footballers across talent development and community settings.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare talent development athletes to community-level athletes in Australian Rules Football across various markers of healthy youth development. Methods: Survey data were collected from 363 youth athletes (126 women, 232 men, 5 not reported; Mage=18.69 years, SDage=2.62 years, age range 16-25 years) playing Australian Rules Football at a talent development (recruited from Australian Football League Talent Pathway, n=220) or community (n=143) level. Measures included markers of physical health (eg, general health, risk-taking behaviours), psychological and emotional well-being (eg, mental health symptoms, life satisfaction), family and social relationships (eg, social support, relationship status), educational and occupational attainment/engagement (eg, career satisfaction, education), ethical behaviour (eg, moral self-image), civic engagement, life skills (eg, self-mastery, coping), and demographics. Results: Based on regression models, relative to community-level athletes, talent development athletes reported better physical health (d=0.51), lower injury rates (OR=0.50) and less problematic drug use (d=-0.46). Talent development athletes also reported better psychological and emotional well-being, evidenced by lower stress (d=-0.30), higher life satisfaction (d=0.47) and less problematic gambling (d=-0.34). Additionally, talent development athletes reported higher family support (d=0.49), lower likelihood of poor educational outcomes (less than expected educational stage; OR=0.37), lower intention to complete less than year 12 education (OR=0.18), higher career satisfaction (d=0.42), higher self-mastery (d=0.37) and higher perfectionistic striving (d=0.59). Conclusion: Findings demonstrate markers of healthier development within talent development athletes relative to community athlete peers. Investment in community-level sports may be warranted to improve healthy development. However, further causal evidence is required.
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.