
Bernice Sant
Related Authors
Steven Pinker
Harvard University
Sebahattin Devecioglu
University of Firat
David Seamon
Kansas State University
John Johnson
Pennsylvania State University
Evan Thompson
University of British Columbia
John Sutton
Macquarie University
Prashanth Nuggehalli Srinivas
Institute of Public Health, Bangalore
Gary Feinman
Field Museum
Hairul Anuar Hashim
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Evangelos Bebetsos
Democritus University of Thrace
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Papers by Bernice Sant
To evaluate the methodological quality of the research conducted on Mindfulness Interventions (MI) among competitive athletes to date, while also, through the use of a systematic map, gaps in existing research literature were identified.
Background:
Building on the 3 systematic reviews already present on MI in sports, this review provides another viewpoint on the quality of MI studies to date.
Methods:
Randomised and Non-randomised inclusion criteria: any kind of MI, modified versions of MI, those where an ACT approach was used, as long as, a MI in a sport competitive setting was present. Searches completed through a no of databases, between July-Nov 2017, ending with 23 studies (n = 19,048). Risk of bias was assessed through Downs&Black and Cochrane. Due to the heterogeneity, a narrative review (n = 23) on the quality of studies, alongside a systematic map (n = 17) was carried out.
Conclusions:
The results have suggested that MI may be of benefit. That said, similar methodological problems emerged, with the additional complexities in defining mindfulness highlighted. Making strong causal claims about the benefits these strategies offer for athletes can be difficult as there’s still more room for improvement.
Methods: Injured participants (N = 10) recruited from different sports and quasi-randomly assigned to either a mindfulness intervention group (n = 5) or control group (n = 5). Both groups completed the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale and the Sport Injury Anxiety Scale pre- and post-intervention, while the intervention group also took part in social validation interviews when the intervention was completed.
Results: The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant interaction effect between group and time for both mindfulness (p < .01) and sport injury anxiety (p < .01) and also for time (p < .05) for both mindfulness and sport injury anxiety. However, there was no main effect for group separately in both mindfulness and sport injury anxiety. Additionally, Awareness, Acceptance and Action were the three super-ordinate themes elicited from the social validation interviews.
Discussion: Following an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of this study, the theoretical significance of the results was assessed and the promise for the application of mindfulness training in decreasing sport injury related anxiety during rehabilitation was discussed.
To evaluate the methodological quality of the research conducted on Mindfulness Interventions (MI) among competitive athletes to date, while also, through the use of a systematic map, gaps in existing research literature were identified.
Background:
Building on the 3 systematic reviews already present on MI in sports, this review provides another viewpoint on the quality of MI studies to date.
Methods:
Randomised and Non-randomised inclusion criteria: any kind of MI, modified versions of MI, those where an ACT approach was used, as long as, a MI in a sport competitive setting was present. Searches completed through a no of databases, between July-Nov 2017, ending with 23 studies (n = 19,048). Risk of bias was assessed through Downs&Black and Cochrane. Due to the heterogeneity, a narrative review (n = 23) on the quality of studies, alongside a systematic map (n = 17) was carried out.
Conclusions:
The results have suggested that MI may be of benefit. That said, similar methodological problems emerged, with the additional complexities in defining mindfulness highlighted. Making strong causal claims about the benefits these strategies offer for athletes can be difficult as there’s still more room for improvement.
Methods: Injured participants (N = 10) recruited from different sports and quasi-randomly assigned to either a mindfulness intervention group (n = 5) or control group (n = 5). Both groups completed the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale and the Sport Injury Anxiety Scale pre- and post-intervention, while the intervention group also took part in social validation interviews when the intervention was completed.
Results: The mixed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant interaction effect between group and time for both mindfulness (p < .01) and sport injury anxiety (p < .01) and also for time (p < .05) for both mindfulness and sport injury anxiety. However, there was no main effect for group separately in both mindfulness and sport injury anxiety. Additionally, Awareness, Acceptance and Action were the three super-ordinate themes elicited from the social validation interviews.
Discussion: Following an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of this study, the theoretical significance of the results was assessed and the promise for the application of mindfulness training in decreasing sport injury related anxiety during rehabilitation was discussed.