In elite sports, a case is increasingly made for the structural inclusion of what we label as planned disruptions. These are structured and deliberate training activities whereby athletes are exposed to increased and/or changing demands under controlled circumstances. Despite the growing body of evidence in support of planned disruptions (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2017), there is a lack of knowledge on which strategies coaches use in an applied context and why they use them. The present study, therefore, aimed at exploring the different types of planned disruptions high-performance coaches use and the desired outcomes of these disruptions. To this end, thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, & Weate, 2016) was used to analyze semistructured interviews with 9 talent development and elite-level coaches (M age = 42.9, SD = 8.3; 6 male, 3 female). Results indicated that coaches use a combination of 9 types of planned disruptions (i.e., location, competition simulation, punishments and rewards, physical strain, stronger competition, distractions, unfairness, restrictions, and outside the box). These strategies were used to familiarize athletes to pressure, create awareness, develop or refine personal resources, and promote team processes. Three additional themes emerged, namely, the surprise use of planned disruptions, periodization, and the impact on personal relationships. The findings in the present study can guide further applied and theoretical explorations of the use of planned disruptions.
The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a resilience development intervention, set up around regular exposure to increased pressure. This intervention adopted a quasi-experimental design, delivered within an elite female basketball academy. The mixed methods evaluation combined individual and team resilience measures with semi-structured interviews with athletes and coaches. Quantitative results demonstrated that the intervention was effective in reducing team level vulnerabilities. Qualitative evaluations indicated that the intervention led to increased awareness, emerging leadership, stronger communication channels, and the development and execution of collective plans. Furthermore, potential avenues for intervention improvement were also addressed.
The use of the biopsychosocial model in primary care physiotherapy for chronic pain is far from the recommendations given in research and current guidelines. To understand why physiotherapists have difficulty implementing a biopsychosocial approach, more insight is needed on the barriers and facilitators. This scoping review aimed to investigate and map these barriers and facilitators that physiotherapists working in primary care reportedly face when treating patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC) and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they investigated the experiences of physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic pain from a biopsychosocial perspective in primary care. Extracted data were discussed and sub grouped in themes following a qualitative content analysis approach. To align with current use of theories on behavior change, the resulting themes were compared to the Theoretical Domains Framework. After screening, twenty-four studies were included. Eight groups of barriers and facilitators were identified, thematically clustered in six themes: knowledge, skills, and attitudes; environmental context and resources; role clarity; confidence; therapeutic alliance; and patient expectations. The results of this review can be used to inform the development of implementation programs.
LINK
