Inside the locker room: a qualitative study of coaches’ anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and attitudes

Engelberg, Terry; Moston, Stephen

doi:10.1080/17430437.2015.1096244

Cited by 33 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, coaches generally reported themselves as having only 'a little' knowledge of key anti-doping areas and they did not perceive themselves to be well-equipped to work with their sportspeople on doping-related matters. These findings support previous coach-based anti-doping research that has shown that coaches perceive themselves to have low knowledge (e.g., Fjeldheim, 1992) and feel unprepared to deal with doping-related issues (e.g., Engelberg & Moston, 2016). Given that emerging evidence (e.g., Allen et al, 2017;Patterson & Backhouse, 2018) suggests that coaches' perceptions of low knowledge and being unprepared contributes to them being reluctant to undertake anti-doping actions, it is important that the content of programmes is adapted to meet coaches' needsand effectively develop their knowledge and skills.…”

Section: Content Of Anti-doping Education and Its Impactsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In the absence of formal education opportunities, many coaches report that they learn about doping and anti-doping through self-directed means, such as searching the internet/websites, newspapers/TV, books and other literature/documents (e.g., Engelberg & Moston, 2016;Mandic et al, 2013;Rodek et al, 2012). This is in stark contrast with findings in the general coach education literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Moreover, research that will aid us in understanding coaches' engagement with antidoping education programmes is particularly pertinent given that many coaches have, or at least perceive themselves to have, only low to moderate doping/anti-doping related knowledge (e.g., Fjeldheim, 1992;Fung & Yuan, 2006;Sajber et al, 2013). Additionally, ANTI-DOPING EDUCATION FOR COACHES 6 coaches have reported feeling 'ill-equipped' or 'badly trained' to undertake anti-doping roles and responsibilities (e.g., Engelberg & Moston, 2016;Laure, Thouvenin & Lecerf, 2001;Vankhaldo & Planida, 2013). This situation leads many coaches to not readily/actively engage in anti-doping actions (Allen et al, 2017;Laure et al, 2001;Patterson & Backhouse, 2018).…”

Section: Anti-doping Education For Coachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Examining Coaches’ Experiences and Opinions of Anti-Doping Education

Patterson

Backhouse

Lara-Bercial

2019

International Sport Coaching Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although global policy states that coaches are a key stakeholder group for anti-doping education, very little is known about how performance and participation coaches develop their understanding of anti-doping policy and practice. Therefore, 292 UK-based coaches completed an online survey exploring their experiences of anti-doping education (i.e., topics covered, how and by whom the programmes were delivered and how knowledgeable and well-equipped coaches felt to deal with doping-related matters). The results showed that almost a quarter of the surveyed coaches reported never learning about anti-doping. Only a third had engaged with a formal anti-doping education programme and coaches typically received information on detection-deterrence related topics (e.g., banned substances, testing procedures). Many coaches perceived themselves as only having 'a little' knowledge about anti-doping and declared themselves as 'a little' equipped to work with their sportspeople on doping-related matters. Nonetheless, 96% of coaches were inclined to learn more about antidoping in the future. Given the World Anti-Doping Code states that anti-doping education for coaches should be compulsory, it is crucial that insights from coaches are made public to inform the development of evidence-informed anti-doping programmes that are tailored and targeted.

show abstract

Section: Content Of Anti-doping Education and Its Impactsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Anti-doping Education For Coachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining Coaches’ Experiences and Opinions of Anti-Doping Education

Patterson

Backhouse

Lara-Bercial

2019

International Sport Coaching Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the apparently great influence coaches seem to be able to execute on athletes (Huybers and Mazanov 2012 ) in combination with the predictive value of coach climate on doping susceptibility, we also support the call for broader value-based education that includes athletes’ support personnel (Momaya et al 2015 ). However, coaches do not consider doping prevention as their task (Engelberg and Moston 2016 ). As indicated by Copeland and Potwarka ( 2016 ), these preventive approaches should ensure the improvement of ethical team culture by including leadership elements and informing athletes about the actual prevalence of doping, which should prevent a “normalization-of-doping” culture as proposed by Woolf et al ( 2014 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review

Blank¹,

Kopp

Schnitzer

et al. 2016

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in doping has focused on potential intervention strategies, increasingly targeting predicting factors. Yet, findings are inconsistent, mostly athlete-centred and explain only limited variances in behaviour. This critical review aims to (a) summarize studies that identified predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour in elite athletes and to (b) analyse in how far previous research included aspects beyond athlete-centred approaches, such as context and sporting culture. We reviewed 14 studies that focused on elite athletes. Situational temptation, attitudes, and subjective norms seem to be strong predicting variables of doping intentions (r ≥ 0.50), but intention was no predictor for behaviour. Attitudes were a significant predictor for both, doping susceptibility (r = 0.47) and behaviour (r = 0.30). Most of the predictors are athlete-centred and ignore macro-level factors that might help to explain how certain individual traits impact on the decision making process. The findings from this review call for a critical discussion of whether current doping-prevention research needs to take new directions. We propose future research to bridge findings of psychologists and sociologists, as it appears that doping behaviour cannot be explained by ignoring the one or the other. Impacts of sporting culture that have been identified in qualitative approaches need to be integrated in future quantitative approaches to test for its external validity. Inclusion of both, micro- and macro level factors may enable an integrative prevention program that creates a sporting culture without doping.

show abstract

“…Concerning their management of both sporting and anti-doping commitments, athletes are affected by actors at different levels: from coaches to representatives of national and international federations. In several studies, athlete support personnel have been found to influence athletes' decision-making and doping behaviour (Donovan et al, 2002;Jalleh et al, 2014;Huybers & Mazanov, 2012) Furthermore, it has been suggested that support personnel often lack knowledge about, or fail to pay sufficient attention to, the rules regulating doping in sports, something that has been emphasized as a risk for the athletes whom they advise and support (see, e.g., Backhouse & McKenna, 2011;Dikic, McNamee, Günter, Samardzic Markovic, & Vajgic, 2013;Engelberg & Moston, 2015;Mazanov, Backhouse, Connor, Hemphill, & Quirk, 2014).…”

Section: Anti-doping At the Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%