Comparing the healthy development of youth Australian Rules Footballers across talent development and community settings

Liam G Graeme; Kate Hall; Lisa S Olive; Christopher J Greenwood; Nicky Couston; Sophie Mattingley; Lauren M Francis; Erin Hoare; Simon Rice; Jason Bos; Emma Harris; George J Youssef

doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001799

Comparing the healthy development of youth Australian Rules Footballers across talent development and community settings

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024 May 7;10(2):e001799. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001799. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Liam G Graeme¹, Kate Hall^{1

2}, Lisa S Olive^{1

3

4

5}, Christopher J Greenwood^{1

6

7}, Nicky Couston², Sophie Mattingley¹, Lauren M Francis¹, Erin Hoare^{2

3}, Simon Rice^{4

5}, Jason Bos¹, Emma Harris², George J Youssef¹

Affiliations

¹ School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, SEED Lifespan Strategic Research Centre, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
² Australian Football League, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
³ Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
⁴ Elite Sports Mental Health, Orygen, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁵ Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁶ Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁷ Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare talent development athletes to community-level athletes in Australian Rules Football across various markers of healthy youth development.

Methods: Survey data were collected from 363 youth athletes (126 women, 232 men, 5 not reported; Mage=18.69 years, SDage=2.62 years, age range 16-25 years) playing Australian Rules Football at a talent development (recruited from Australian Football League Talent Pathway, n=220) or community (n=143) level. Measures included markers of physical health (eg, general health, risk-taking behaviours), psychological and emotional well-being (eg, mental health symptoms, life satisfaction), family and social relationships (eg, social support, relationship status), educational and occupational attainment/engagement (eg, career satisfaction, education), ethical behaviour (eg, moral self-image), civic engagement, life skills (eg, self-mastery, coping), and demographics.

Results: Based on regression models, relative to community-level athletes, talent development athletes reported better physical health (d=0.51), lower injury rates (OR=0.50) and less problematic drug use (d=-0.46). Talent development athletes also reported better psychological and emotional well-being, evidenced by lower stress (d=-0.30), higher life satisfaction (d=0.47) and less problematic gambling (d=-0.34). Additionally, talent development athletes reported higher family support (d=0.49), lower likelihood of poor educational outcomes (less than expected educational stage; OR=0.37), lower intention to complete less than year 12 education (OR=0.18), higher career satisfaction (d=0.42), higher self-mastery (d=0.37) and higher perfectionistic striving (d=0.59).

Conclusion: Findings demonstrate markers of healthier development within talent development athletes relative to community athlete peers. Investment in community-level sports may be warranted to improve healthy development. However, further causal evidence is required.

Keywords: Australian football; psychology; quantitative; sports; young.