These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance determinants and evidence-based practice in track cycling: A survey of coaches, practitioners, and athletes.
    Author: Stadnyk AMJ, Impellizzeri FM, Stanley J, Menaspà P, Slattery KM.
    Journal: J Sci Med Sport; 2024 Oct; 27(10):726-733. PubMed ID: 38965003.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study examined how track cycling coaches, practitioners, and athletes: develop knowledge and practices; value performance areas; and, implement research into practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: An online REDCap survey of track cycling coaches, practitioners, and athletes was conducted involving questions related to demographics, performance area importance, knowledge acquisition and application, research relevance, and research direction. RESULTS: A total of 159 responses were received from coaches (n = 55), practitioners (n = 29), and athletes (n = 75). Participants' highest track cycling competition level involvement ranged from local/regional (12.7%) to Olympic/Paralympic (39.9%). Respondents primarily develop practices by observing 'the sport' or 'others competing/working in it' (both 85.8%). Practitioners develop practices through self-guided learning (96.4%). The primary reason for practice use was prior experience (84.9%), whilst individuals were least likely to use practices resulting in marginal gains with potentially negative outcomes (27.3%). Areas of greatest perceived importance were Aerodynamics, Strength & Conditioning, and Tactics (all >96% agreed/strongly agreed). Scientific evidence for Tactics (30%) and Mental Skills (26%) was perceived to be lacking, resulting in greater reliance on personal experience (74% and 62%, respectively) to inform training decisions. The main barrier to implementing research into practice was athlete buy-in (84.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Within track cycling, informal learning was most popular amongst respondents. Greater reliance on personal experience within evidence-based practice for many performance areas aligns with limited existing research. Most respondents reported multiple barriers affecting research implementation in practice.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]