Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Greater expertise, more data, and increased collaboration do not necessarily improve decisions in high-performance sport. Support systems must connect evidence and professional judgement to action under time pressure, uncertainty, and competing priorities. This narrative review draws on targeted database and citation searches to synthesize literature on performance support, team functioning, leadership, sport science, and decision science. The proposed framework combines established decision principles with qualitative triage and selective integration. Urgency, uncertainty, risk and consequences, reversibility, interdisciplinary interdependence, and stakeholder differences guide the choice between discipline-led decisions, consultation or coordinated input, and integrated decision-making. Five interdependent functions organize integrated work: framing the problem and decision; identifying contributors and governance; interpreting information and generating options; committing to and communicating a course of action; and acting, monitoring, and learning. Governance distinguishes information provision, recommendations, final authority, and implementation responsibility, with referral or escalation available from any working mode. Athlete values and decision rights shape the process, including shared decision-making and consent where required. Coaches help translate recommendations into feasible training and competition plans. Scientific reasoning, applied inquiry, innovation, and integrative leadership support these functions. Hypothetical examples address return to sport, training modification, and technology adoption. The framework remains conceptual, and evaluation should examine content validity, usability, triage consistency, implementation burden, and decision processes before assessing health and performance effects. Decision quality should be judged against the information and uncertainty present when decisions were made.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rebelo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: