Search

High performance sport consists of stressor events which can disrupt an athletes' functioning and negatively influence performance. The way in which one reflects upon stressor events and develops insights regarding how they coped is essential to overcoming similar experiences in the future. We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial with a qualitative analysis to explore the coping insights among 48 highly trained/national level swimmers in the lead up to major swimming competitions, who reflected on stressor events from self‐distanced or self‐immersed perspectives over a 3‐week period. Using the self‐reflection and coping insight framework as a guideline, we captured divers coping insights across both groups. Irrespective of the group to which they were assigned, athletes showed positive signs towards re‐interpreting their stressor experience and embracing the stressor event, whereas consideration of individual values and adoption of a future‐focus viewpoint were areas lacking. The emotionality described by athletes in their written reflections varied across both groups and influenced the development of coping insights. Our findings indicate a necessity to examine the emotionality associated with unique stressor events and consider integrating reflection strategies, while also enhancing the operational definitions within conceptual models of stress reflection protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a pre-registered systematic review of seven databases and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with athletes to examine the effectiveness of stress regulation interventions on performance outcomes, and the conditions under which their effects are strongest. We found a positive and significant moderate overall effect of stress regulation interventions on performance outcomes (65 effects, k = 21, N = 2022, g = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.19, 0.84) and a significant large effect on physiological outcomes (28 effects, k = 10, N = 368, g = 2.13, se = 0.81, 95% CI =.47, 3.79), yet the effect on psychological dimensions was statistically inconsequential (28 effects, k = 10, N = 787, g = 0.35, 95% CI = −0.12, 0.81). Sensitivity and meta-bias analyses generally supported the robustness of the pooled effect of stress regulation interventions on athlete performance, yet the prediction intervals suggested some interventions may be inefficacious or detrimental for athlete performance. The strongest effects on performance were observed at follow-up when compared with post-test. Collectively, our findings offer a high-quality assessment on the effectiveness of stress regulation interventions for athlete performance and provide direction for future research in terms of conceptual and methodological issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]