ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Sport for Development and Peace Reviews: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decade, Sport for Development (SFD) and Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) reviews have seen an increase in published review research to explore the potential of sport as a vehicle for development to attain Sustainable Development Goals among others. Some reviews have been conducted on several related themes, but to date, no attempt has been made to evaluate and scrutinize review contributions in this field.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of SFD/SDP reviews to provide a complete and updated picture of the field of research.
methodsA scoping systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines was used to identify reviews published on SFD/SDP since 2000. After applying strict inclusion criteria in eight languages, including gray literature, 21 reviews were identified through database searches in Scopus, SPORTDiscus, ScieLO, SocINDEX, ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Experts from the field were consulted, mapping of authors and overlapping of studies were conducted and the quality of reviews was assessed.
resultsFindings highlighted diverse thematic focuses, including those aligned with Sustainable Development Goals such as health promotion, gender equality, and educational outcomes, alongside novel areas such as managerial implications and critical pedagogy. Despite the wealth of research, consensus on sport's developmental potential remains elusive, hindered by methodological limitations and a dearth of quality assessments. Moreover, the dominance of English publications underscores a need for linguistic inclusivity, while re-evaluating terminology and expanding disciplinary engagement can enrich and globalize the discourse. Critical reflection is warranted on the historical context of SFD/SDP, moving beyond colonial narratives to embrace diverse development paradigms, including intra-European perspectives.
conclusionsThe field of SFD/SDP seems to need initiatives that focus on bottom-up approaches, with long-term monitoring, evaluation of changes over time, attention to cultural contexts, and local participation. It also necessitates a rigorous revision of methodologies to better elucidate the multi-level impact of sport-based initiatives on achieving developmental objectives, and to bring in the viewpoints of other disciplines to gain a more complex understanding of the SFD/SDP field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42020896What 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.