ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Identifying sport-for-development outcome measures suitable for a living-lab setting: a scoping review.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSport-for-development (SFD) aims to use implicit features of sport (such as leadership, teamwork, and communication) to improve non-sport-related outcomes, including physical health, physical literacy, mental health, and social competency. Recent reviews show that youth-based SFD programs can positively impact youth development. However, SFD programming often takes place in a living lab, where evaluation occurs in an ecologically valid yet dynamic setting that makes outcome measurement challenging. Our goal was to conduct a review that collates data on outcome measures used in SFD living lab environments to assess physical health, physical literacy, mental health, and social competency. In doing so, our review aims to identify and characterize outcome measures that have been previously used for evaluating SFD programming in a living lab setting.
methodsOur review was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley framework for scoping reviews. To identify relevant articles, we performed a search of 5 academic databases and 2 grey literature repositories. Our inclusion criteria required articles to discuss youth, sport, living labs, and development (with respect to physical health, physical literacy, mental health, and/or social competency). No restrictions were placed on study design or on year of publication. Only English-language articles were included.
resultsWe identified 1493 studies, of which 8 were ultimately included in our scoping review. Study designs varied from case-series to randomized trials and sample sizes ranged from 4 to 1749. We found that SFD researchers rely heavily on existing questionnaires that were not developed for use in living labs, often adapting these scales to suit contextual needs. Such ad hoc adaptation is typically not accompanied by outcome measure validation.
conclusionsTo date, there are few valid outcome measures to evaluate SFD programming in living lab settings. Research is needed to develop such outcome measures to better understand the impact of SFD programming as its presence continues to grow. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Our review was registered in the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/awgsj/ ) prior to data extraction and analysis.
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.