Performance determinants and evidence-based practice in track cycling: A survey of coaches, practitioners, and athletes.

Stadnyk, AMJ; Impellizzeri, FM; Stanley, J; Menaspà, P; Slattery, KM

Performance determinants and evidence-based practice in track cycling: A survey of coaches, practitioners, and athletes.

Stadnyk, AMJ Impellizzeri, FM Stanley, J Menaspà, P Slattery, KM

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: J Sci Med Sport, 2024, pp. S1440-2440(24)00213-5
Issue Date:: 2024-06-11

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (2.21 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Stadnyk, AMJ
dc.contributor.author	Impellizzeri, FM
dc.contributor.author	Stanley, J
dc.contributor.author	Menaspà, P
dc.contributor.author	Slattery, KM
dc.date.accessioned	2024-08-14T23:12:35Z
dc.date.available	2024-06-03
dc.date.available	2024-08-14T23:12:35Z
dc.date.issued	2024-06-11
dc.identifier.citation	J Sci Med Sport, 2024, pp. S1440-2440(24)00213-5
dc.identifier.issn	1440-2440
dc.identifier.issn	1878-1861
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/180411
dc.description.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.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof	J Sci Med Sport
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.jsams.2024.06.001
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 1116 Medical Physiology, 1117 Public Health and Health Services
dc.subject.classification	Sport Sciences
dc.subject.classification	3202 Clinical sciences
dc.subject.classification	4207 Sports science and exercise
dc.subject.classification	5201 Applied and developmental psychology
dc.title	Performance determinants and evidence-based practice in track cycling: A survey of coaches, practitioners, and athletes.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences
utslib.for	1116 Medical Physiology
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HPRC - Human Performance Research Centre
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2024-08-14T23:12:34Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

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.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/180411