Good practice delivery in sport science and medicine support: perceptions of experienced sport leaders and practitioners

Abstract

Purpose/Rationale: Sport Science and Medicine practitioner delivery is clearly of interest, with numerous anecdotal insights to good practice and research focussing on the evaluation of competence in delivery. However, little research has explicitly examined perceptions of the skills sets, process and mechanisms that lead to good practice. Accordingly, our aim was to develop a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of Sport Science and Medicine delivery, examining perceptions in high-performance environments and whether constructs apparent in other performance domains could be relevant in the Sport Science and Medicine delivery context.Design/Methodology/Approach: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with six experienced Sport Science and Medicine practitioners and six primary employers of the support itself, namely performance directors. Data were transcribed and analysed to generate higher-order themes.Findings: There were four emergent themes of environmental appreciation, role appreciation, understanding people and the importance of team for good practice delivery. Moreover, there were sources of knowledge apparent from other performance domains that offer constructs or concepts with implications for good practice in Sport Science and Medicine.Practical Implications: Findings promote a greater focus on non-technical skills, selection of appropriate delivery models, and an increased emphasis on evidence-based practice. Building from the results, we make some recommendations to support both the practitioner in striving for impactful delivery and those who lead and manage their delivery and development in the roles.Research Contribution: This academic evidence-based offering supports and extends current anecdotal insights on offer in his important function.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.