Ian D Boardley1, Martin Chandler2, Susan H Backhouse3, Andrea Petróczi4. 1. University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom. Electronic address: I.d.boardley@bham.ac.uk. 2. University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom. 3. Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Headingley, Leeds, LS16 5LF, United Kingdom. 4. Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Doping in sport is a significant issue. To date, research informing doping prevention has lacked a framework guiding research priorities. To ensure research is coordinated, sustainable and focused on end-user priorities, this study co-created the first research agenda for doping prevention. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to develop this agenda. Based upon two substantive reviews of the doping literature and 12 focus groups across five countries, a questionnaire was developed assessing the importance of 15 research topics and identifying research questions. Eighty-two anti-doping stakeholders with relevant expertise were invited to be panel members. In Round 1, an expert panel (n = 57; 70% response rate) completed this questionnaire. In Round 2, panel members (n = 33; 58% response rate) ranked for relative importance the eight topic areas rated highest in Round 1, before doing the same for research questions within each topic. Based on these rankings, a draft agenda was created. In Round 3, panel members (n = 26; 79% response rate) rated the degree to which they accepted this agenda, the feasibility of its delivery and identified possible barriers and facilitators to implementation. RESULTS: The results of Round 1 and Round 2 were used to create a draft agenda consisting of 18 research questions stratified across eight topic areas. This agenda was either fully (n = 16) or mostly (n = 9) accepted by the panel in Round 3 (96.2%). Research topics included the effectiveness of interventions/education programmes, environmental influences, long-term development of protective and risk factors in athletes and their entourage, athletes' experiences of anti-doping procedures and athletes' place in the anti-doping system. CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous exercise created an agenda for doping prevention research. Adoption and application of this agenda should lead to better coordination, more efficient use of funding, enhanced uptake of research findings and more effective doping prevention education.
BACKGROUND: Doping in sport is a significant issue. To date, research informing doping prevention has lacked a framework guiding research priorities. To ensure research is coordinated, sustainable and focused on end-user priorities, this study co-created the first research agenda for doping prevention. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to develop this agenda. Based upon two substantive reviews of the doping literature and 12 focus groups across five countries, a questionnaire was developed assessing the importance of 15 research topics and identifying research questions. Eighty-two anti-doping stakeholders with relevant expertise were invited to be panel members. In Round 1, an expert panel (n = 57; 70% response rate) completed this questionnaire. In Round 2, panel members (n = 33; 58% response rate) ranked for relative importance the eight topic areas rated highest in Round 1, before doing the same for research questions within each topic. Based on these rankings, a draft agenda was created. In Round 3, panel members (n = 26; 79% response rate) rated the degree to which they accepted this agenda, the feasibility of its delivery and identified possible barriers and facilitators to implementation. RESULTS: The results of Round 1 and Round 2 were used to create a draft agenda consisting of 18 research questions stratified across eight topic areas. This agenda was either fully (n = 16) or mostly (n = 9) accepted by the panel in Round 3 (96.2%). Research topics included the effectiveness of interventions/education programmes, environmental influences, long-term development of protective and risk factors in athletes and their entourage, athletes' experiences of anti-doping procedures and athletes' place in the anti-doping system. CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous exercise created an agenda for doping prevention research. Adoption and application of this agenda should lead to better coordination, more efficient use of funding, enhanced uptake of research findings and more effective doping prevention education.