Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42328322›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026

Exploring the perceptions of athletes and DCOs on the remote sampling procedure in anti-doping testing: shifting control to burden.

Julian Lanfer, Daniel Westmattelmann, Benedikt Stoffers, Andrea Petróczi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Julian LanferCenter for Management, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Daniel WestmattelmannCenter for Management, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Benedikt StoffersCenter for Management, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Andrea PetrócziFaculty of Health and Sport Sciences, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The approach of remotely collecting anti-doping samples from athletes by utilizing a Remote Sampling System (RSS) presents a technological innovation in anti-doping work, offering a potential solution to the logistical limitations of traditional in-person testing. Even though the implementation decision obliges Anti-Doping Organizations (ADOs), successful implementation hinges on whether athletes as the key stakeholders of anti-doping work perceive an RSS as legitimate. Furthermore, the perceptions of DCOs who are the key users operating an RSS and having to adapt to new sample collection procedures are largely unexplored. This study adopted an exploratory qualitative design to investigate the perceptions of athletes and DCOs. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 elite athletes and 22 professional DCOs. Data were analyzed using template analysis to identify their key themes and considerations associated with procedural steps of remote sampling applied in anti-doping testing. Results: Our findings reveal challenges in user-system integration, which we conceptualize as a shift from DCO control to athlete burden. For athletes, the transfer of specific sample-handling responsibilities inherent to the remote sampling procedure is perceived as an unjust burden of personal risk, logistical effort, and procedural anxiety. Key concerns include the management of test kits and the liabilities associated with taking responsibility for unobserved sample shipment. Conversely, DCOs interpret this transfer as a critical loss of control over procedural integrity and professional oversight, focusing on the inability to uphold an unbroken chain of custody. Discussion: The study concludes that RSS implementation is not merely a technological challenge but one of trust management that must consider user perceptions and concerns on how remote sampling can be designed as a legitimate procedure of anti-doping work. It must reconcile the shift from control to burden by simultaneously mitigating the athletes' burden while empowering DCOs with reliable tools, enabling them in their role as guarantors of anti-doping testing's procedural integrity. These insights provide actionable recommendations for anti-doping organizations to pilot new remote sampling protocols that are not only efficient but also perceived as legitimate, trustworthy, and effective.

Indexed as

anti-dopingathletesdoping controlremote samplingtechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID42328322
PMCPMC13275381

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.