Cross-sectional study evaluates the SMHAT-1 effectiveness for identifying mental health issues in endurance runners, highlighting its limitations.
The Sport Mental Health Assessment Tool (SMHAT-1) is a screening tool aiming to identify mental health issues in elite athletes. The tool is composed of two steps, starting with a short triage questionnaire (Athlete Psychological Strain Questionnaire (APSQ); step 1), followed by subsequent disorder-specific screening instruments (step 2) only if APSQ yields positive results. SMHAT-1 has been successfully employed in various sports settings; however, no studies assessing this screening tool have been examined in endurance (ER, distance runners 21.1-42.2 km) and ultra-endurance runners (UER; >42.2 km), where the prevalence of mental health issues is high. We examined the coherence of the SMHAT-1 overall assessment and the validity of the APSQ screening tool in ER/UER. This is a cross-sectional study, in which 601 ER and UER completed the SMHAT-1 (triage tool APSQ, and all subsequent disorder-specific screening questionnaires) via an online survey. APSQ and screening outcomes were dichotomized using established cut-offs. APSQ performance as a triage tool was evaluated by comparison with disorder-specific screening outcomes. Agreement was assessed using confusion matrices, classifying cases into true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN). We sampled 601 runners (37% female), with a mean age of 42.8 ± 10.1 years. The proportion of FP was 20.14%, and the proportion of FN was 37.43%. Overall, the coherence between APSQ triage and the aggregated screening outcome was 66.89%. A higher concentration of alcohol use, sleep disturbances, eating disorders, and drug use symptoms was observed among FN cases. The APSQ is not suitable to identify ER/UER with a higher risk of mental health symptoms, especially for disorders related to alcohol use, sleep disturbances, eating disorders, and drug use symptoms. The use of the SMHAT-1 screening component (step 2) is more appropriate, although it does not assess for other specific conditions prevalent in this group of athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thuany et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: