Gender and socioecological level differences in stakeholders' perceptions of athlete attrition factors in an Australian high-performance pathway system.

Objectives: This study aimed to build on previous work by the authors. It examines how socioecological level and gender influence high-performance sport system (HPSS) stakeholders' perspectives of the relative importance and feasibility to address athlete attrition factors within an Australian high-performance pathway system (HPPS).
Design: Mixed methods.
Methods: Sub-analysis was conducted of rating data from 30 participants who had contributed to identifying 83 statements in 13 clusters in a previous Concept Mapping study. The 13 clusters were statistically analysed in 'R' using cumulative link mixed models (CLMMs) to determine differences in perceived importance and feasibility between 1) socioecological levels, and 2) genders.
Results: Mean ratings for 11 and three of the 13 clusters were statistically significantly different between at least two of the five socioecological levels, for importance and feasibility, respectively. Athletes had the largest variation in mean ratings from the most (athlete health 4.59), to least (performance potential 2.83) important cluster, when compared to the other four socioecological levels. There were statistically significant differences between the ratings between genders (Men/Women) for two clusters for each rating scale: Importance: 'athlete health' (M3.33:W3.84 [p 0.012]); 'performance potential' (M3.35:W2.57; [p 0.001]), Feasibility: 'abuse and mismanagement of health' (M2.97:W3.68; [p 0.000]) and 'athlete health' (M2.54:W3.33; [p 0.000]).
Conclusions: This study highlights the need to implement more robust athlete attrition monitoring protocols. It also highlights the importance of listening to youth athletes' voices, and enabling equal gender representation to ensure holistically tailored environments are created to retain talented athletes in high-performance pathway programmes.
Competing Interests: Declaration of interest statement MD and RA worked at an Australian Institute of Sport; and KM and SG worked at the NSW institute of Sport at the commencement of this study. These institutes did not influence or approve the final version of this manuscript. No other conflict of interests to declare.
(Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)