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.
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | British Journal of Sports Medicine |
| Early online date | 26 Jun 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 26 Jun 2024 |
Keywords
- Doping in Sports
- Psychology
- Drug and Narcotic Control