Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION

Evidence‐based practice is a fundamental principle that guides exercise and nutrition recommendations (Coutts, 2017; Fullagar et al., 2019). In a sporting context, evidence‐based practice has been described as ‘the integration of coaching expertise, athlete values and the best relevant research evidence into the decision‐making process for day‐to‐day service delivery to athletes’ (Coutts, 2017). Observational research evidence provides a description of a population or outcome, while experimental studies relate the cause and effect of an exercise or nutrition intervention (Burke et al., 2018). Practitioners utilise findings from peer reviewed research to inform their practice and research questions are often generated and evolve from observations of real‐world behaviours, events and outcomes (Hawley et al., 2018). Given the importance of evidence‐based practice in exercise and nutrition, addressing research questions in sport science has the potential to improve health, performance and recovery of athletes and the wider population (Fullagar et al., 2019). Research in sport science is therefore necessary to support practitioners and athletes (Bishop et al., 2006).

The generalisability of research outcomes depends in part on characteristics of the study from which outcomes are derived. Study findings should only be applied to populations and scenarios that reflect those of the study itself (Betts et al., 2020). While a homogenous participant sample may improve internal validity, it likely renders findings relevant only to populations similar to that from which the sample was drawn. In the context of sport science research, caution should be used when applying findings obtained from research with untrained or recreationally active individuals to highly trained, elite and world class athletes (Burke et al., 2018). There are many examples in sport science research where adaptations or performance improvements with trained athletes following an intervention are not replicated with highly trained or elite athletes. For example, in moderately trained athletes, changes in endurance performance following a training block with periodised carbohydrate availability were greater than those of a control group whose diet provided continuous high carbohydrate availability (Marquet et al., 2016). Meanwhile, no such advantage was reported when elite athletes followed equivalent interventions (Burke et al., 2017). A similar trend in outcomes has been observed following dietary nitrate consumption, with a negative correlation between performance improvement following supplementation and participant fitness level (Porcelli et al., 2015).

Given the limitations of transferring research findings with active and trained individuals to higher calibre athletes, it is pertinent to involve highly trained and elite cohorts in the investigations which target their unique characteristics and needs. Participant recruitment is a general research challenge, having been described in populations as diverse as university students, pregnant women and cancer patients (Frew et al., 2014; Sygna et al., 2015; Vadeboncoeur et al., 2017). Nevertheless, conducting research with highly trained and elite athletes has novel challenges, including the reluctance of athletes and their coach staff to accept disruptions to their training and competition preparation (Coutts, 2017). Athletes and teams may also be hesitant to disclose information that could provide a competitive advantage to others. Furthermore, by definition the populations of highly trained, elite and world class athletes become increasingly smaller than their active and moderately trained counterparts, creating great logistical challenges around study recruitment (McKay et al., 2022). Unfortunately, strategies that can successfully address these challenges have not been thoroughly investigated. Such information has the potential to positively influence athlete health and performance through increasing the scope, quality and impact of sports science research. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify methods used to engage and recruit highly trained, elite and world class athletes as participants into research from a purposeful sample of sports science literature.

2. METHODS

3. RESULTS

A total of 439 screened studies which had recruited athletes from tier 3 or above were included in the data analysis (Figure 1) and are listed in Table S2. Of these studies, 222 provided insufficient detail to determine how athlete recruitment occurred. 114 of the 439 included studies recruited athletes from a single team or club. Following thematic analysis, one overarching theme was identified, under which five major recruitment themes were developed (Table 1). Table 2 presents indicative quotes of each theme from included studies.

Open in a separate window

FIGURE 1

Document screening flow chart. ^a studies recruited athletes from multiple tiers.

Purposeful, convenience sampling was identified as the overarching recruitment strategy from the included studies and this theme links with each of the five major recruitment themes. We defined purposeful sampling as relating to the recruitment of targeted athletes based on their sport, team, or calibre. We defined convenience sampling as relating to the recruitment of athletes based on their ease of access and their location relative to the researchers.

The most prominent major theme was that athletes were accessed through a gatekeeper. This theme describes how engaging athletes was coordinated through some gatekeeper, be that a single person, persons, or an organisation. The most prominent subtheme within this constructed theme related to an author of the study being affiliated with the sporting team or organisation from which the athletes were recruited. An extension of this was the small number of studies where one of the researchers was an active or formerly active athlete within the sport. Other studies within this gatekeeper theme recruited athletes through a person or contact within the sporting organisation, such as the coach, manager, physiotherapist, or other medical personnel. Other studies simply note a ‘representative’ or ‘club contact person’ was used to recruit athletes. Recruitment through the National Sporting Organisation or Institute was also a common thread within this theme. Initial contact was typically made between researcher and organisation, followed by either the organisation contacting athletes with study information for recruitment purposes or the organisation providing contact details of athletes to researchers. Direct contact was then made, typically via email, although some face‐to‐face contact was reported. The use of an athlete database was also reported in several studies under this gatekeeper theme, including US college athlete registries, surgical databases and publicly accessible athlete ranking databases.

The second major theme was that some research environments provide convenient access to athletes. This theme describes the recruitment of athletes who typically train or perform within close proximity of the research laboratory. Most studies within this theme were conducted in the university setting with elite student‐athletes as participants. A very small number of other codes were linked to this theme, including athletes approaching the researcher to undergo investigations and conducting a follow up study of previously investigated athletes.

The third major strategy used by researchers was to promote the study using electronic communication formats. In these studies, researchers utilised primarily social media to disseminate information about a study in attempts to recruit athletes. Only a small number of studies used this strategy (n = 22) and most of these studies asked participants to complete an online survey on one or multiple occasions. In addition, several of these studies recruited both recreational and highly trained athletes. The use of online promotion of the study also involved some direct contact with athletes, whereby researchers sent direct messages to athletes via social media with study information.

The fourth major theme involved the use of professional networks to recruit athletes. Connections related to the researchers' previous research or other work conducted with sporting clubs, organisations, or institutions, provided an avenue to engage athletes into the research environment as participants. For example, ‘Participants were recruited and selected through convenience sampling from the research team's network of contacts based on previous links with the rugby league clubs’ (Andrew et al., 2022). Networks were also highlighted when circulating study details via social media or email.

The final theme was to recruit athletes at competition or training. A small number of studies engaged athletes directly at either a training venue, including training camp, or at competition, to promote the study and recruit participants.

4. DISCUSSION

The aim of this document analysis was to identify strategies used in sport science research to engage and recruit highly trained, elite and world class athletes as participants. Through the analysis of 439 journal articles, five main recruitment strategies were identified, with an additional overarching theme describing the recruitment approach as purposeful and convenient. Accessing athletes through a gatekeeper was the predominant strategy used, with other strategies relating to convenient access to elite athletes at research facilities, the use of social media to recruit and distribute study information, relying on previously formed networks and attending training and competition to recruit.

The most prominent recruitment strategy identified from the analysed studies was the use of a gatekeeper to engage and recruit athletes. Within this theme, having an author affiliated with the sporting team or organisation was the most widely used approach. The document analysis was unable to determine the origin of the affiliation: whether the researcher moved into the sporting organisation or whether the research group invited personnel from within the sporting organisation to collaborate on the project. Either approach would appear to be a viable and successful means to conduct research with elite level athletes. Embedding a research member within the sporting organisation can be a successful approach to recruiting athletes into research (Coutts, 2016). This method also facilitates the co‐design of research with end‐users, ensuring that research questions are of authentic interest to the athletes and coaches to promote their engagement, while safeguarding the logistics around the implementation of protocols (McKay et al., 2023). Embedded researchers are able to identify system and environmental constraints that may limit the application of findings or methods from traditional research (Coutts, 2016). This may result in designing protocols that are better able to measure metrics of interest, via direct characteristics of superior reliability and ecological validity, as well as the genuine engagement of participants. Indeed, some studies have incorporated pre‐experimental control of diet and exercise within actual sporting competitions to monitor changes in performance (Burke et al., 2017), representing the merging of ideal research features with intrinsic motivation and real‐world conditions. Truly embedded research models have been shown to provide additional value to the incumbent participants and sports; for example, providing funding that supports otherwise unaffordable training camps, or allowing access to novel sports science or coaching expertise, testing, or resources (McKay et al., 2023). Ultimately, conducting research with individuals within the sporting organisation, whether an embedded researcher or otherwise, appears to improve recruitment capacity while also increasing the relevance and translation of sport science research with the elite athlete (Coutts, 2017).

Beyond the sporting organisation‐affiliated author, the gatekeeper took on the form of staff within an organisation or the organisation itself. Staff identified in the document analysis as potential gatekeepers were coaches, managers and medical personnel. Engaging these key stakeholders may provide more opportunity to involve athletes in the research environment. When coaches and staff see value in the research project, they may be more likely to endorse the project. These stakeholders also provide an opportunity for research co‐design, leading to greater outcomes for athletes, staff and researchers (Coutts, 2017). The organisation was identified as a gatekeeper in a small number of analysed studies. National Sporting Organisations, governing bodies and Institutes of Sport were most commonly utilised as points of contact to then gain access to athletes. Although this method was an important strategy identified from this recruitment theme, the small number of studies reporting this approach may reflect its feasibility, particularly given the privacy and consent requirements around providing athlete contact details to researchers.

Researchers utilised their local environment to recruit athletes as participants. This strategy primarily involved the recruitment of elite student‐athletes in the university setting. Making use of resources available within the research environment seems an intuitive decision to assist recruitment. When elite athletes grace the hallways and practice fields outside the research laboratory, it makes sense to engage these athletes as potential participants in research. Many of the studies that employed this recruitment strategy had authors affiliated with the university sporting team or department, again suggesting some form of gatekeeper may have been involved in study design and recruitment. Beyond these studies, many other studies screened in the document analysis recruited university athletes but did not supply sufficient information to determine how recruitment took place. Clearly then, student‐athletes can be an accessible cohort to involve in sport science research. The calibre of athletes may vary, but certainly the NCAA system in the United States has a large pool of highly trained and elite athletes that could be engaged with as research participants (McKay et al., 2022). Including team staff in the research process also opens up co‐design opportunities that can increase research translation (Grindell et al., 2022).

A noteworthy finding was the use of online and social media promotion of studies to recruit participants. Social media has been recognised as an emerging resource for participant recruitment in health research, with suggestions social media may be an effective platform for accessing hard‐to‐reach populations (Gelinas et al., 2017). However, social media also has its limitations as a recruitment strategy, including samples unrepresentative of the target population (Arigo et al., 2018). A scoping review of social media recruitment for medical research showed 12 of 30 studies found social media to be the most effective recruitment method, eight of which were observational studies (Topolovec‐Vranic et al., 2016). Findings from the current document analysis seem to support this, with most studies recruiting through social media using online surveys to collect data. It is also important to note that many of the screened studies in the current document analysis were conducted in 2020 during the COVID‐19 pandemic when face‐to‐face research was severely limited. As such, study designs and recruitment methods likely shifted in response to the restrictions in place at the time.

Researchers utilised their professional network to assist in participant recruitment in a small number of studies. Networks appear to have been developed through previous research or work with sporting teams and organisations. In these scenarios, researchers may potentially bypass the requirement for a gatekeeper to gain access to athletes, having previously built rapport with staff and athletes themselves. Many of the studies that employed this strategy also utilised social media to recruit athletes. This suggests researchers with a wider following and previous connections with athletes and teams can lean on these networks to recruit for future research. Although a viable strategy, it is likely unavailable to research groups yet to develop a track record of research in the elite sporting environment. As such, its broader applicability as a recruitment strategy for researchers may be limited. A potential solution could be to collaborate with other researchers who already have developed networks; these researchers themselves acting as gatekeepers.

The current study has several strengths. A rigorous, systematic approach was taken in the document analysis, with a large sample of studies screened to obtain relevant data. Furthermore, the thematic analysis was performed in accordance with recommended procedures, improving transparency and trustworthiness of the findings (Cleland et al., 2023; Kiger et al., 2020). There are limitations that should be considered when interpreting findings. The selection of journals for document screening was based on impact factor. Many of the included journals have a sports medicine focus, where particular recruitment strategies may be more effective than in sports performance research. The studies included in the document analysis were published subsequent to a unique time in science. Specifically, the COVID‐19 pandemic had a substantial impact on research opportunities and this likely influenced the design of many studies included in this document analysis and as an extension, the recruitment strategies used. Although several meaningful themes were constructed from the document analysis, over half of the included studies provided insufficient detail to determine how recruitment took place. Therefore, there may be other recruitment strategies not described in the current analysis that could be considered for future sport science research. This limitation reinforces the importance of transparent reporting in sport science research (Halperin et al., 2018).

5. CONCLUSION

Purposeful and convenient recruitment appear to be the primary broad approaches taken to recruit well trained, elite and world class athletes as research participants. Strategies identified in the document analysis included the use of a gatekeeper, recruiting athletes that are commonly within close proximity of the research setting, promoting the study on social media, utilising researcher networks and recruiting athletes at training or competition. It is suggested that researchers work collaboratively with team or organisation personnel to engage athletes and consider co‐designed approaches that address issues most relevant to athletes and staff.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

PARTICIPANT CONSENT STATEMENT

No participants were recruited for this study.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE

No material was reproduced in the production of this manuscript.

Supporting information

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES