Comparing the healthy development of youth Australian Rules Footballers across talent development and community settings

Procedure

This study presents initial findings from a longitudinal cohort study of youth playing Australian Rules Football. Participants completed online surveys measuring a broad range of demographic and developmental constructs. Inclusion criteria were: (1) Between 16 and 25 years of age (inclusive); (2) competing for an Australian Rules Football team at any level; (3) not experiencing an acute mental health episode. Rolling recruitment (ie, participants can enter the study at any stage) began in August 2021 and included periods of COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia. Recruitment strategies included face-to-face recruitment from the research team or within-club player development managers, social media and online advertisement, and emails to club administrators. Talent development athletes were primarily recruited at AFL Talent Pathways’ physical fitness testing days. Participants were entered into a draw to win one of 36 AU$40 prize vouchers. All participants provided informed consent.

Participants

The current study uses baseline data for 363 participants (126 women, 232 men, 5 sex-at-birth not reported; Mage=18.69 years, SDage=2.62 years, age range 16–25 years). In characterising the socioeconomic status of the sample, we linked participant postcodes to area-level relative socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage, providing a broad marker of access to material and social resources and the ability to participate in society.32 Relative socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage of participants (M=1026.06, SD=62.66, range=851–1150) was slightly higher than the average index of all Australian towns/cities (M=1000, SD=100, range=400–123932. Participants were included in the current sample if they completed the baseline survey demographics section, representing approximately 25% of the survey length. Participants were split into two competition levels: (1) talent development athletes (n=220) in development programmes (AFL Talent Pathway) and (2) a community comparison group (n=143) playing at any level below talent development. The AFL Talent Pathway consists of approximately 1500 players identified annually for possible national AFL league drafting. These players are selected to train, participate in matches and engage in programmes to develop their talent. AFL Club selectors monitor them throughout the year to determine their suitability for being nominated for national competitions.33 Involvement in this talent pathway includes participation in high-performance training camps and travel for competition, which is above regular training undertaken at the community level. Talent development athletes in this sample also receive dedicated well-being programme sessions, which aim to promote personal well-being, mental health, coping and help-seeking behaviours, interpersonal relationships and alcohol and illicit substance use education, which is not a feature of community-level participation (see Couston et al34 for more details).

Measures

Table 2 presents the measurement of study outcome variables, including measure descriptions, direction, scoring and reliability. Measures were chosen to map onto Scales’8 dimensions of healthy youth development, with a focus on life domains applicable to the broader youth population. As such, general measures of healthy development were favoured over measures of sport-specific outcomes, as normative healthy development was the area of interest for the current study. Furthermore, measure selection involved balancing comprehensiveness with participant burden due to survey length, and thus, some potentially relevant markers could not be included (eg, a wider variety of life skills). Measurements are grouped into constructs according to Scales’8 framework. Covariates were age, sex assigned at birth (0=female, 1=male), socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage,32 and state of residence (0=not Victoria, 1=Victoria). Furthermore, to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns, all analyses also adjust for COVID-19 impact, a two-item study-derived measure of worry about COVID-19 and its impact on daily routine in the past 3 months (α=0.69).

Statistical analysis

Analyses were conducted using Stata V.17.0. Regression analyses were conducted to test the differences between community and talent development athletes in terms of various developmental outcomes. Specifically, each outcome was regressed onto a binary playing level variable (ie, community vs talent development) and covariates. Categorical variables greater than two levels were dummy coded to create binary variables indicating whether a participant endorsed each level. Linear and logistic regression analyses were conducted for continuous and binary outcomes. Effect sizes are presented as Cohen’s d for continuous outcomes or ORs for binary outcomes. Missing data ranged between 0% and 55% and were handled using multiple imputations based on multivariate normal regression,35 with binary variables imputed as continuous and then back-transformed using adaptive rounding.36 All variables analysed in the current study were included in the imputation model. Research indicates that multiple imputation has reduced bias in estimates when compared with complete case analysis, even under very high levels of missing data (ie,>50%).37 38 Rubin’s rules39 were used to pool estimates across 50 imputed data sets. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for significance testing. While we note the number of comparisons conducted, given each comparison is interpreted individually, recent advice suggests that an adjustment to the alpha level of each test is not required.40

Patient and public involvement

While youth athletes were not included in the research design, research questions and survey measures were selected as appropriate for youth athletes.

Equity, diversity and inclusion statement

Recruitment targeted participants nationally, and we specifically recruited participants from men’s and women’s competitions. Additionally, our sample included a diversity of cultural, sexual and socioeconomic backgrounds. The authors included seven women and five men from varied disciplines and career stages. Analyses account for differences in socio-economic advantage/disadvantage and sex assigned at birth.

Sample demographics

Table 3 summarises participant demographic characteristics after adjustment for age, sex assigned at birth, socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage, state of residence and COVID-19 impact. Talent development athletes were younger (d=−0.43) and from areas of higher socioeconomic advantage (d=0.27) than community-level athletes.

Developmental markers

Tables 4–6 summarise the physical health (table 4), psychological and emotional well-being (table 5) and other developmental characteristics (table 6) of community-level and talent development athletes after adjustment for age, sex assigned at birth, socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage, state of residence and COVID-19 impact.

Compared with community-level athletes, talent development athletes demonstrated a generally healthier profile of physical health, reporting better general health (d=0.51), less injury (OR=0.50) and less problematic drug use (d=−0.46). Similarly, talent development athletes reported better psychological and emotional well-being characteristics, specifically lower stress symptoms (d=−0.30), higher life satisfaction (d=0.47) and less problematic gambling (d=−0.34). Talent development athletes also demonstrated healthier other developmental outcomes, specifically, higher family support (d=0.49), lower rates of less than expected education (OR=0.37), lower intention to complete less than year 12 education (OR=0.18), higher career satisfaction (d=0.42), higher self-mastery (d=0.37) and higher perfectionistic striving (d=0.59) compared with community-level athletes. No other group differences were detected.

Implications

Findings highlight less healthy developmental outcomes in community sports participants, including injury, drug use, stress, life satisfaction and self-mastery compared with talent development peers. Talent development athletes’ physical, psychological and emotional well-being were enriched compared with community peers, and they showed evidence of healthier markers of family support, educational and occupational engagement/attainment and life skills. Notably, findings held after adjustment for demographic factors of age, sex, socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage, state of residence and COVID-19 experience. Given the evidence in youth from the general population, highlighting the interrelatedness of these markers of healthy development,43 improvements in one domain may have positively affected improvements in other developmental domains. This area warrants further attention, particularly in talent development athletes, and has implications for policy and practice in youth sports. While differing features of community sport compared with talent development sport (eg, number of participants, funding, club engagement, designated well-being personnel and programmes) may limit the feasibility of implementing similar approaches, community athletes would benefit from purposeful approaches that foster healthy development during this critical life stage. Indeed, sports systems that focus on developing protective factors inside and outside the sporting environment may ultimately protect the healthy development of youth athletes.

Limitations

Findings should be interpreted considering key limitations. First, there are important selection bias considerations. The representativeness of the talent development sample may have been affected, given that most athletes were recruited during AFL fitness testing days, limiting the number of athletes with physical injuries. Additionally, the comparability of the current study to sports with other structural characteristics (ie, non-team sports talent development pathways at different ages) is limited. Furthermore, while we used multiple imputations to handle missing data, we note the broad range of missing data specifically for variables nearer the survey’s end. Missing data was somewhat higher among talent development participants than among community participants, which may suggest that shorter surveys (eg, implementing planned missing designs) are required so that data can be collected onsite during recruitment sessions. Second, all measures were self-reported, which may impact the rates of sensitive factors, such as concussion, substance use and gambling. Finally, while analyses adjust for key demographic factors, given the current study is cross-sectional, we cannot determine whether talent development sports involvement is causally leading to developmental outcomes or whether those in talent development programmes already possess markers of healthy development.

The current study was further limited by data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions in Australia. Research has demonstrated higher rates of negative socioemotional outcomes due to the pandemic and associated restrictions,44 hindering our ability to generalise the prevalence rates presented here to non-pandemic times. This may also have impacted the differences detected (or not detected) here given the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions may have impacted these two groups differently (eg, for talent development athletes, pauses to sport may represent a threat to a potential athletic career, a stressor that is less likely to apply to community athletes). All analyses presented here adjust for a measure of the impact of COVID-19 on the worry and daily routine of participants and for Victorian resident status, mitigating the impact of this limitation on the present findings. However, we acknowledge that despite our best attempts at handling this issue, the impact of COVID-19 and lockdowns cannot be entirely avoided, and future research is required to validate these findings.

Conclusions

The current study provides insight into youth talent development and community athletes across various inter-related markers of healthy youth development. Findings demonstrate markers of healthier development within talent development athletes relative to sport-matched community peers, even after accounting for age, sex, socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage, state of residence and COVID-19 experience. Applying a holistic developmental lens to youth athlete development across all levels of sports participation can reveal new ways to promote and protect the positive development of all youth athletes.