Key result
Collaborative, co-designed approaches, multicenter studies, and the inclusion of case studies are recommended to bridge the application gap between sport science research and applied practice in elite female athletes.
This commentary highlights the need for multicenter studies, case studies, and collaborative approaches to bridge the gap between sport science research and applied practice in female athletes.
BACKGROUND: Female-specific science, medicine, and innovation have grown steadily since the turn of the decade as the focus on female sport continues to advance. While this growth is welcome, and despite the best of intentions, it is not always coupled with valuable application. PURPOSE: This commentary discusses barriers faced when developing and applying sport-science research and innovation activities in female sport. We offer several practical solutions to help safeguard the progress of female athlete health and performance support. We make 3 suggestions: (1) multicenter studies to increase the number of elite athletes participating in research and enhance statistical power, which is often lacking in sport-science research; (2) further acceptance of case studies in elite sport research, as they can include context alongside athlete data that more traditional research designs perhaps do not; and (3) collaborative, codesigned approaches to research and innovation, wherein researchers, practitioners, and athletes all contribute to balancing scientific rigor with applied "real-world" understanding, which may result in the generation of richer, more meaningful knowledge for the benefit of female athletes and their environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burden et al. (2024) conducted an editorial in Elite female athlete health and performance. Collaborative, co-designed approaches, multicenter studies, and the inclusion of case studies are recommended to bridge the application gap between sport science research and applied practice in elite female athletes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: