The article presents a social ecosystem model of youth sport actors in a market environment and examines expert assessments collected in two survey rounds. The aim is to substantiate the model’s structure and identify priorities for its practical refinement. The model places the development of the child as a person at its value centre. It connects families, coaches and youth sport organisations with public authorities, local communities, federations, educational and healthcare institutions, scientific organisations and resource partners. Nine operating principles and eight resource flows describe the proposed interactions. Each round contained 35 responses, with matching participant codes. Frequency analysis, descriptive statistics of five-point ratings and qualitative analysis of open responses were used. Arithmetic means, medians, standard deviations and the proportions of ratings of four or five characterised the distribution of expert assessments. Missing and non-evaluable responses were excluded separately for each item. The findings indicate support for the ecosystem concept while revealing a need to specify the organisational conditions for its further implementation in practice. Experts emphasised clearer coordination responsibilities, resource planning, staff preparation and measurable monitoring procedures. The combination of public funding and additional partnership resources was viewed favourably, but support for individual components did not imply unconditional endorsement of the entire model. The results distinguish conceptual acceptability from practical readiness. Changes in item wording between rounds limit direct comparison and do not establish improved consensus. The assessments provide a basis for refining the model and preparing its further implementation in practice. They do not demonstrate actual improvements in access, health, financing or sporting outcomes, which were not measured in this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maksym Onipchenko (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: