1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          High levels of admitted doping use (43.6% and 57.1%) were reported for two international sport events in 2011. Because these are frequently referenced in evaluating aspects of anti-doping, having high level of confidence in these estimates is paramount.

          Objectives

          In this study, we present new prevalence estimates from a concurrently administered method, the Single Sample Count (SSC), and critically review the two sets of estimates in the context of other doping prevalence estimates.

          Methods

          The survey featuring the SSC model was completed by 1,203 athletes at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics (WCA) (65.3% of all participating athletes) and 954 athletes at the 2011 Pan-Arab Games (PAG) (28.2% of all participating athletes). At WCA, athletes completed both UQM and SSC surveys in randomised order. At PAG, athletes were randomly allocated to one of the two surveys. Doping was defined as “having knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method.”

          Results

          Estimates with the SSC model for 12-month doping prevalence were 21.2% (95% CI: 9.69–32.7) at WCA and 10.6% (95% CI: 1.76–19.4) at PAG. Estimated herbal, mineral, and/or vitamin supplements use was 8.57% (95% CI: 1.3–16.11) at PAG. Reliability of the estimates were confirmed with re-sampling method ( n = 1,000, 80% of the sample). Survey non-compliance (31.90%, 95%CI: 26.28–37.52; p < 0.0001) was detected in the WCA data but occurred to a lesser degree at PAG (9.85%, 95% CI: 4.01–15.69, p = 0.0144 and 11.43%, 95% CI: 5.31–11.55, p = 0.0196, for doping and nutritional supplement use, respectively). A large discrepancy between those previously reported from the UQM and the prevalence rate estimated by the SSC model for the same population is evident.

          Conclusion

          Caution in interpreting these estimates as bona fide prevalence rates is warranted. Critical appraisal of the obtained prevalence rates and triangulation with other sources are recommended over “the higher rate must be closer to the truth” heuristics. Non-compliance appears to be the Achilles heel of the indirect estimation models thus it should be routinely tested for and minimised. Further research into cognitive and behaviour aspects, including motivation for honesty, is needed to improve the ecological validity of the estimated prevalence rates.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Psychology of Survey Response

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias.

            S L Warner (1965)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sensitive questions in surveys.

              Psychologists have worried about the distortions introduced into standardized personality measures by social desirability bias. Survey researchers have had similar concerns about the accuracy of survey reports about such topics as illicit drug use, abortion, and sexual behavior. The article reviews the research done by survey methodologists on reporting errors in surveys on sensitive topics, noting parallels and differences from the psychological literature on social desirability. The findings from the survey studies suggest that misreporting about sensitive topics is quite common and that it is largely situational. The extent of misreporting depends on whether the respondent has anything embarrassing to report and on design features of the survey. The survey evidence also indicates that misreporting on sensitive topics is a more or less motivated process in which respondents edit the information they report to avoid embarrassing themselves in the presence of an interviewer or to avoid repercussions from third parties. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Sports Act Living
                Front Sports Act Living
                Front. Sports Act. Living
                Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2624-9367
                05 December 2022
                2022
                : 4
                : 1017329
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University , London, United Kingdom
                [2] 2Department of Movement Sciences, Faculty of Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit (KU) Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [3] 3Willibald Gebhardt Research Institute, University of Münster , Münster, Germany
                [4] 4Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University , Utrecht, Netherlands
                [5] 5Doping Authority Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel , Netherlands
                [6] 6Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
                [7] 7Research and Expertise in anti-Doping Sciences (REDs), Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne , Lausanne, Switzerland
                Author notes

                Edited by: James Hopker, University of Kent, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: David Pavot, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada; Thomas Zandonai, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Spain

                *Correspondence: Andrea Petróczi a.petroczi@ 123456kingston.ac.uk

                This article was submitted to Anti-doping Sciences & Integrity in Sport, a section of the journal Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fspor.2022.1017329
                9760848
                f28ead40-0f2e-4684-81df-9957a8d48f8b
                Copyright © 2022 Petróczi, Cruyff, de Hon, Sagoe and Saugy.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 11 August 2022
                : 25 October 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 8, Equations: 10, References: 86, Pages: 22, Words: 16399
                Categories
                Sports and Active Living
                Original Research

                athlete,performance enhancement,doping,randomised response technique,prevalence,single sample count,prohibited substance,elite sport

                Comments

                Comment on this article