ReviewSports medicine - open2026
What Is Known About Athlete Engagement: A Scoping Review.
Review in Sports medicine - open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAthlete engagement represents a critical construct for understanding optimal athletic functioning, yet the field lacks comprehensive theoretical models integrating its diverse correlates. While previous research has identified various factors influencing engagement, no systematic synthesis exists mapping all empirical evidence across populations, languages, and sporting contexts. This scoping review addresses this critical gap by providing the first comprehensive, systematic synthesis of all factors associated with athlete engagement, establishing the foundational evidence base necessary for theoretical model development and evidence-based interventions.
methodsThe review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, Arksey and O'Malley's five stages and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search was carried out in seven databases and 1428 papers were retrieved. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 70 studies were assessed for eligibility. After removing papers of poor quality, unavailable papers and papers investigating other types of engagement, 48 papers published between 2007 and 2024 were selected for analysis.
resultsThe majority of these papers were quantitative and cross-sectional, using the Athlete Engagement Questionnaire to measure athlete engagement. The review identified 41 correlates of athlete engagement, categorised as antecedents, consequences, mediators or related variables. Psychological factors, such as burnout, motivation, perfectionism and the coach-athlete relationship, were the most commonly studied.
conclusionsThe results highlight the significant role of burnout, motivation, perfectionism and the coach-athlete relationship in enhancing engagement and emphasise the importance of developing training programmes that address these factors in order to promote athlete engagement. REGISTRATION: The following scoping review was appropriately registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TWNZM ).
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.