Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Psychosocial predictors of doping intentions and use in sport and exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ntoumanis, Nikos; Dølven, Sigurd; Barkoukis, Vassilis; Boardley, Ian David; Hvidemose, Johan S; Juhl, Carsten B; Gucciardi, Daniel F.
Afiliación
  • Ntoumanis N; Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark nntoumanis@health.sdu.dk.
  • Dølven S; Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
  • Barkoukis V; Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
  • Boardley ID; Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
  • Hvidemose JS; School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
  • Juhl CB; Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
  • Gucciardi DF; Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Br J Sports Med ; 2024 Jul 03.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38925889
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To conduct a meta-analytic review of psychosocial predictors of doping intention, doping use and inadvertent doping in sport and exercise settings.

DESIGN:

Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL Plus, ProQuest Dissertations/Theses and Open Grey. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Studies (of any design) that measured the outcome variables of doping intention, doping use and/or inadvertent doping and at least one psychosocial determinant of those three variables.

RESULTS:

We included studies from 25 experiments (N=13 586) and 186 observational samples (N=3 09 130). Experimental groups reported lower doping intentions (g=-0.21, 95% CI (-0.31 to -0.12)) and doping use (g=-0.08, 95% CI (-0.14 to -0.03), but not inadvertent doping (g=-0.70, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.55)), relative to comparators. For observational studies, protective factors were inversely associated with doping intentions (z=-0.28, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.24), doping use (z=-0.09, 95% CI -0.13 to to -0.05) and inadvertent doping (z=-0.19, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.06). Risk factors were positively associated with doping intentions (z=0.29, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.32) and use (z=0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.19), but not inadvertent doping (z=0.08, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.22). Risk factors for both doping intentions and use included prodoping norms and attitudes, supplement use, body dissatisfaction and ill-being. Protective factors for both doping intentions and use included self-efficacy and positive morality.

CONCLUSION:

This study identified several protective and risk factors for doping intention and use that may be viable intervention targets for antidoping programmes. Protective factors were negatively associated with inadvertent doping; however, the empirical volume is limited to draw firm conclusions.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Br J Sports Med Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Dinamarca

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Br J Sports Med Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Dinamarca
...