PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate swimming coaches’ perceptions of a low energy availability/Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport education workshop, developed using a knowledge translation approach.

 METHODS

This study was developed as a collaboration between Griffith University and Swimming Australia (SA) and was approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (GU Ref No: 2021/547). Initially, a knowledge transfer group (KTG) was established, which included two senior academic staff and a PhD candidate from Griffith university (JH), the general manager of performance support from SA and the lead dietitian from SA (AD). A KB consultant was also a key member of this group, who was employed to facilitate the design and development process. 

A purposeful sampling approach was employed to identify coaches within SA pathways. The following inclusion criteria were adopted: a) SA accredited coach; b) currently coaching SA development swimmers; c) coaching in Queensland, Australia; d) coaching in a club and/or school setting. 

 

Education intervention

The education intervention involved a four-step process; 1) scoping and consultation, 2) design and development, 3) implementation and 4) evaluation.  Steps 1 and 2 were completed using the online collaborative platform Miro (Realtime Board Inc), with all members of the KTG having access to the software and actively participating in weekly workshops. Outside of these workshops, two members of the KTG (i.e., the lead dietitian from SA and the PhD candidate from Griffith University) and the KB dedicated time to work on activities and tasks required to complete each step. This work was presented back to the KTG for discussion and agreement via weekly meetings. The focus of this study was to discuss the outcomes from steps 3 and 4 of the methodology (i.e., implementation and evaluation).

Data was collected in two phases: 1) immediate post-workshop evaluation survey (process evaluation), and 2) delayed (6 weeks) post workshop informal roundtable (impact/outcome evaluation). The process evaluation was conducted inductively using three questions (a mix of categorical and open-ended questions). The impact/outcome evaluation was deductive, and the COM-B model was used to evaluate coaches’ likelihood of behaviour change after attending the workshop.

RESULTS 

Twenty-one coaches attended the workshop, and fourteen completed the post workshop survey. The process evaluation findings indicate that coaches found numerous aspects of the workshop valuable, including  the case study approach, resources for consolidation of learning and discussions around the challenges they may experience when managing athletes at risk. The impact/outcome evaluation, based on the COM-B model,  identified eleven facilitatory and four inhibitory themes. Coaches reported an enhanced understanding and knowledge of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport but lacked the physical and psychological capability to apply new knowledge and/or desired behaviours in practice.

 

CONCLUSION 

The integration of knowledge translation approaches in coach education may be important when addressing sensitive and complex topics in sport. This requires effective partnerships between researchers, national sporting organisations and experts in knowledge translation to strengthen the integrity and applicability of future coach education initiatives on complex and sensitive topics in sport.