Doping prevalence and attitudes towards doping in Dutch elite sports

Balk, Lisanne; Dopheide, Marit; Cruyff, Maarten; Erik, Duiven; Hon, Olivier de

doi:10.55860/bcuq4622

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from an unpublished manuscript [30], shared with permission to include, were presented in a conference abstract [31] in English. Additionally, results from the more recent doping prevalence study in the Netherlands [32,33] were published in Balk et al [34]. Studies by Ulrich et al [35] and Petróczi et al [36] were conducted in the same settings (and with the same sample for one set of data) but using different IEM, whereas Ulrich et al [37] presents a reanalysis of the data reported in Petróczi et al [36].…”

Section: Overview Of Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Bibliometric Analysis

Sagoe,

Cruyff,

Chegeni

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To our knowledge, no previous systematic review and meta-analysis on doping prevalence in sport from Indirect Estimation Models (IEM) exists. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis complemented with a bibliometric analysis on empirical IEM-based studies of admitted doping prevalence in sport. Methods We conducted electronic database and ad hoc searches up to December 2023, estimated lifetime and past year prevalence rates, and conducted study quality/risk of bias as well as bibliometric analysis. Results Forty five studies were included in the review (meta-analysis: k = 33, bibliometric analysis: k = 22). The World Anti-Doping Agency’s definition of doping use was applied for data collection in most studies (k = 18) and doping prevalence was mostly assessed as past year/season (k = 20). Studies included in the meta-analysis were mostly conducted in Europe, particularly Germany (k = 10), and applied the Unrelated Question (k = 11) and Forced Response (k = 10) models. The lifetime prevalence rate of doping for competitive athletes was 22.5% (95% CI: 15.3–31.4, k = 10) and 17.2% (95% CI: 10.5–26.0, k = 4) for recreational sportspersons (t = -1.69, p = .100). Additionally, the past year prevalence rate of doping for competitive athletes was 14.3% (95% CI: 9.6–20.3, k = 14) and 10.3% (95% CI: 6.1–16.3, k = 7) for recreational sportspersons (t = -1.69, p = .100). Study participants were mostly multi-sport (k = 22) and competed at diverse levels. Additionally, majority of data (k = 27) were collected outside sport events. Most studies were evaluated as of moderate risk/quality (k = 17). Eight of the 17 journals where the prevalence estimation studies were published target sports readership. The mean normalized citation score is above the international average at 1.48 (range: 0.00–6.26), with two dominant but unconnected author communities. Conclusions One of six competitive athletes and recreational sportspersons in our sample of included studies admitted doping under IEM, exceeding the prevalence obtained via direct questioning and analytical testing. Despite their advantages, considerable internal variation in publication years and stable collaborations within the two identified communities of authors, IEM-based studies of doping prevalence require functional improvement.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 33 studies included in the meta-analysis sampled 43121 (speci ed n: males = 13508, females = 2725) participants. Sample size ranged from 249 [34] to 4629 [13] with a mean of 1347.53 (SD = 1083. 19) and were justi ed by power analysis in six studies [40,42,[44][45][46][47].…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Bibliometric Analysis

Sagoe,

Cruyff,

Chegeni

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, in a further recent publication [ 6 ] which included Drs. Cruyff and de Hon as co-authors, it is stated:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Prevalence of Doping Among Elite Athletes: An Analysis of Results Generated by the Single Sample Count Method Versus the Unrelated Question Method

Ulrich,

Cléret,

Comstock

et al. 2023

Sports Med - Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, a group of researchers investigated the 12-month prevalence of doping at the 13th International Association of Athletics Federations World Championships in Athletics (WCA) in Daegu, South Korea, and also at the 12th Pan-Arab Games (PAG) in Doha, Qatar. The prevalence of doping at each event was estimated using an established randomized response method, the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). The study, published in 2018, found that the prevalence of past-year doping was at least 30% at WCA and 45% at PAG. At both events, separate data sets were collected in addition to the UQM data using a new method, the single sample count (SSC). Recently, Petróczi et al. have reported 12-month doping prevalence estimates for these two events based on the SSC data. These investigators obtained substantially lower prevalence estimates using the SSC and suggested that the 2018 estimates based on the UQM may have been too high. However, in this communication, we point out several possible shortcomings in the methods of Petróczi et al. and show that their SSC data would be equally compatible with a high 12-month doping prevalence comparable to the UQM estimates published in 2018.

show abstract

Doping prevalence and attitudes towards doping in Dutch elite sports

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Exploring Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Bibliometric Analysis

Exploring Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Bibliometric Analysis

Assessing the Prevalence of Doping Among Elite Athletes: An Analysis of Results Generated by the Single Sample Count Method Versus the Unrelated Question Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About