Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181671›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025

A systematic review of psychological difficulties among elite sports coaches.

Sangwook Kang, Seungjoo Lee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Sangwook KangDepartment of Physical Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seungjoo LeeDepartment of Physical Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review examined the psychological difficulties experienced by elite sports coaches, focusing on their causes, consequences, and potential interventions. Despite increasing recognition of the challenges faced by coaches, limited attention has been paid to understanding their psychological difficulties and available support systems. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus. A total of 101 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2024 were identified and analyzed. Keywords such as "psychological difficulties," "stress," "burnout," and "coach-athlete relationship" were used to guide the search strategy. Results: Findings revealed that elite coaches frequently encounter psychological difficulties stemming from performance pressure, excessive workloads, the complexities of athlete management, and external social expectations. These stressors were associated with heightened risk of burnout, diminished psychological wellbeing, reduced coaching effectiveness, and strained coach-athlete relationships. Discussion: Despite the prevalence and severity of these psychological difficulties, relatively few studies have addressed intervention strategies specifically targeting coaches. This review highlights the urgent need for evidence-based support systems to help coaches manage psychological difficulties and optimize their professional functioning. The findings provide valuable insights to inform future research and practical initiatives aimed at creating a healthier and more sustainable environment for both coaches and athletes in elite sports settings.

Indexed as

burnoutcoaching psychologymental healthoccupational stresssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41181671
PMCPMC12573464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.