Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Promotion International logoLink to Health Promotion International
. 2025 May 22;40(3):daaf051. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaf051

Sport as a social capital intervention promoting health and well-being for migrant youth in Australia

Karen Block 1,✉, Robyn Molyneaux 2, Dana Young 3
PMCID: PMC12096452  PMID: 40402020

Abstract

Social capital is a critical determinant of health, yet few intervention studies have explored how social capital might be generated for those with constrained social networks. This study aimed to assess the well-being and social impacts of a sports participation intervention for culturally and racially marginalized (CARM) migrant young people in Australia. We report findings from a mixed methods participatory action research project, Count Me In. Quantitative findings demonstrated that participation generated growth in social networks for participants, indicating that interventions to support sports participation can generate social capital, rather than it simply being the case that those with more a priori social connections are more likely to participate. Qualitative analyses showed parents and young people experienced highly valued social benefits including increased diversity of connections along with perceived physical and mental health gains from their participation. Findings from this study suggest that policies and health promotion efforts should support opportunities for CARM young people and families to participate in mainstream sports club settings in addition to participation in informal and ethno-specific sports. Additional research is needed to further understand how the social networks that are generated are operationalized by children and families over the longer term, and the health-enhancing impacts of social capital interventions for those with constrained social networks at risk of marginalization.

Keywords: social capital, social networks, migrant, children, sports participation, mixed methods, participatory action research

Contribution to Health Promotion.

  • Introduces a novel social network mapping approach that advances the capacity to measure social capital outcomes.

  • Demonstrates that supporting organized sport participation can increase migrant children’s social networks.

  • Findings show participation was associated with subjective improvements in health and well-being.

  • Increases understanding of social capital intervention impacts for those with constrained social networks.

  • Advances theorization of how children operationalize social capital.

BACKGROUND

A substantial body of research has demonstrated that sports participation is associated with a range of protective factors for positive mental and physical health outcomes for children and adults (Eime et al. 2013, Zuckerman et al. 2021). These include increased physical activity levels, reduced levels of mental ill health and suicidality, resilience, prosocial behaviours, and higher self-esteem (Andersen et al. 2019). In this study, we use the term culturally and racially marginalized (CARM) to specify groups who may be culturally and/or racially marginalized due to perceived differences from the white Anglo-Celtic majority in Australia (Diversity Council of Australia 2023).]. For such groups, including recently arrived young people from refugee backgrounds, sport can also provide an arena in which those at risk of disengagement in education settings because of low host-language proficiency, discrimination, and/or disrupted premigration education can develop language skills and find a sense of belonging (Block and Gibbs 2017, O’Donnell et al. 2020).

Despite the widely touted health and social benefits of sports participation, the mechanisms for these outcomes are often unclear, with interventions based on insufficiently researched assumptions (Coalter 2021). When theorized at all, the rationale for promoting participation in organized sports, and team sports in particular, for migrants and/or ‘at risk’ youth frequently draws on theories pertaining to social capital and integration (Coalter 2013, Moreau et al. 2018, Andersen et al. 2019, Smith et al. 2019). In addition, sports participation in mainstream settings may generate forms of cultural capital for migrants (Smith et al. 2019).

While the development of social networks and corresponding social capital (both bonding and bridging) are purported means through which sport may promote health, little attention has been paid to the ways in which social processes of marginalization interact with and may undermine social capital development. This has prompted calls for the application of an intersectional lens that attends to attributes such as migration status, ethnicity, gender, and age in this field (Young et al. 2024). The following section briefly reviews the theory and evidence for how these attributes interact with social capital as a health resource.

Social capital as a health resource for CARM migrant young people

Social capital has long been accepted as an important, albeit somewhat elusive, determinant of health (Moore and Kawachi 2017, Rodgers et al. 2019, Shiell et al. 2020). Debates over the relative merits of different disciplinary approaches to understanding social capital abound, particularly between political scientist Putnam’s communitarian focus on social cohesion and generalized trust (Putnam 2000), and Bourdieu’s sociological network approach (Bourdieu 1986). Both, however, recognize the influence on the health of resources and norms embedded in social relationships and networks (Morgan et al. 2021). Bourdieu also explicitly links the value of social capital to other forms of capital possessed by network members: economic, cultural, and symbolic. Woolcock suggests a synthesis of the two constructions, defining social capital as referring to both the norms and networks that facilitate collective action (Woolcock 2001).

Social networks comprise the infrastructure through which social capital resources are distributed. Putnam (2000) was the first scholar to popularize the distinction between bonding and bridging social capital and network ties are now commonly conceptualized as comprising three distinct forms: bonding, bridging, and linking connections (Field 2003). Bonding connections are those where there is a shared identity, often between family members and close friends, seen as important for getting by and providing a sense of security along with emotional and practical support (Wakefield and Poland 2005). By way of contrast, bridging social capital flows from relationships and associations between a broader range of people, institutions, and acquaintances, cutting across group attributes such as ethnicity, caste, class, wealth, religion, location, etc. Such associations frequently come about through engagement in leisure activities or paid work and do not depend on shared status or social identity. These relationships are viewed as necessary for getting ahead, achieving ‘success’ and ‘social mobility’ (Szreter and Woolcock 2004). Linking social capital can be seen as a category of bridging capital and refers particularly to relationships between individuals and institutions. Linking capital may be particularly important for marginalized individuals and communities as it can promote information exchange and capacity building (Field 2003, Warr 2005, Domínguez and Arford 2010).

Unlike bridging and linking social capital, bonding capital is not always regarded as an unadulterated good. An abundance of bonding social capital and lack of bridging social capital have been conceptualized as risks for socioeconomic marginalization of migrant populations (Portes 1998, Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi, 2017, 2017, Bolíbar 2020). Portes elaborates at some length on the potential negative effects of [bonding] social capital for those at risk of marginalization: ‘exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedoms, and downward levelling norms’ (Portes 1998: 15).

Research with migrants and refugees frequently focuses on the value of social connections, recognizing that these are disrupted by the migration experience (Ager and Strang 2008, Adedeji 2021). Research with refugees in the UK suggests that while binary distinctions between bonding and bridging capital are unhelpful, recently arrived forced migrants need opportunities to develop close relationships and develop more generalized trust (Strang and Quinn 2021). This is supported by recent Australian research, which demonstrated positive associations between social capital (bonding and bridging ties) and a sense of belonging and hope, emotional support, practical support, safety and security, and overall happiness with life in Australia (Ziersch et al. 2023).

Research focussed on young people and social capital has grown in recent years, with studies demonstrating the positive influence of social capital on children’s mental health (McPherson et al. 2014, Mori et al. 2022). However, understanding of how young people generate or benefit from their own, as opposed to their parents’, social capital remains underdeveloped (Morgan et al. 2021). Nonetheless, ample evidence supports the notion that social ties are critically important for children. Positive relationships between children and their family, friends, and neighbourhood adults have been shown to increase their subjective well-being (Goswami 2012); and related potential to access both formal and informal supports promotes resilience (Ungar 2011). Theorization of the needs of migrant and refugee children identifies social connectedness—along with belonging, leisure activities, participation, and engagement—as vital for integration, once basic needs such as housing, socioeconomic security, education, healthcare, etc., are satisfied (Bajo Marcos et al., 2024).

Sport as a social capital intervention?

Systematic reviews of social capital interventions in public health have revealed a paucity of intervention studies and insufficient attention to context (Shiell et al. 2020) as well as a lack of segmentation: i.e. few which considered ‘specific groups that might selectively benefit from social capital interventions’ (Villalonga-Olives et al. 2018: 1). Such groups might be conceptualized as those with particularly constrained social networks, likely to include at least some individuals from CARM migrant groups.

Sports for development interventions frequently draw on a diverse range of social capital concepts for their rationale. It has been posited that sports may constitute settings where participants can develop prosocial relationships (Nathan et al. 2013) and more diverse bridging social connections, seen as important for supporting resilience and access to new opportunities and information (McDonald et al. 2022, Ziersch et al. 2023). Assumptions about social capital development for migrants and refugees through sport have been criticized however, for the lack of attention paid to the complexity and the mechanisms through which participation leads to particular types of social relationships and, in turn, to outcomes (Moreau et al. 2018, Spaaij and Schaillée 2021). A rare study that was able to follow-up young adults who had taken part in a sport-for-social-change program as children and adolescents in Australia, found they perceived important impacts from relationships developed in the program. Participants reported positive influences on education and career trajectories associated with the diverse social connections and related social capital created (Cunningham et al. 2020).

Excessively rosy assumptions about inevitable positive outcomes and the value of mixed-ethnicity clubs as providing opportunities for bridging capital and enhancing integration have, however, been rightfully challenged (Agergaard 2018). As Spaaij (2012) cautions, bridging connections that are established may be weak, and sports are also a context in which discrimination, aggression, exclusion, and racism may be experienced. Moreover, the competitive nature of sports may be associated with damage to self-esteem for those with lower skill levels (Andersen et al. 2019). Potential to access benefits is also limited because CARM migrant young people are amongst groups underrepresented in community sports as a symptom of broader processes of social exclusion (Sabbe et al. 2021). Responding to evidence of negative experiences of exclusion within mixed-ethnicity clubs (Nesse et al. 2024) there is a growing literature on the benefits and potential of informal sport as an alternative. Scholars have argued that informal participation avoids the barriers associated with access to club settings, yet may provide many of the benefits of sport where CARM migrants can gain a sense of belonging and develop horizontal or bonding capital, (Jeanes et al. 2019, Spaaij et al. 2024). A study by Moreau et al. (2018) argued that the development of social bonds was the key element underpinning ‘success’ of a sports intervention for vulnerable youth with sports providing the context for experiences of socialization.

Nonetheless, other research has suggested that many young migrants and refugees themselves desire opportunities for inclusion in mainstream sports clubs, as opposed to informal sports only or migrant or refugee-specific sports programs (Block and Gibbs 2017). A Swedish study with migrant children and youth found that despite experiences of racism in community sports, clubs with supportive leadership could also function as safe spaces for building trust (Flensner et al. 2021). However, children from CARM communities have been shown to have low participation rates in organized sports, across a number of high-income countries (Johnston et al. 2007, Nielsen et al. 2013, Wijtzes et al. 2014). Available statistics in Australia suggest that children who speak a language other than English at home have a nonparticipation rate in organized sports of 40% compared with a 27% nonparticipation rate for those who spoke only English at home (Australian Sports Commission 2022).

This paper addresses several of the gaps identified in the literature concerning the impacts of sports participation and their mediation through network and social capital development. These include the need for more social capital intervention studies using co-productive, participatory, and intersectional approaches attending to the specific experiences of different participants (Villalonga-Olives et al. 2018, Spaaij et al. 2019). It reports findings from a participatory action research (PAR) project, Count Me In, which produced both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the development of social networks and associated benefits through club sports participation for CARM migrant young people.

INTERVENTION: THE COUNT ME IN PROJECT

Count Me In was a PAR project implemented in the northern suburbs of Naarm (Melbourne), Australia from 2016 to 2019 (Young and Block 2023). It aimed to design, implement, and assess the impacts of a model to address identified barriers to participation in community sports clubs for children and young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds. The overall goal was to promote associated mental and physical health and well-being for participants, through increased physical activity and an increased sense of belonging, social connectedness, and inclusion.

The Count Me In model is built on previous research analysing the capacity of different sports participation models to support social inclusion and well-being for young people with refugee backgrounds. Block and Gibbs (2017) mapped features of sports participation onto Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework defining domains of integration for refugee settlers. Relevant to this study, the model positions social connections (bridges, bonds, and links) as critical mediators of integration/inclusion, with sport also having the potential to facilitate language and cultural knowledge, belonging, and health. In terms of social capital, potential benefits of club versus informal sport include expanded opportunities to develop social bridges and the fact that connection to a club itself can comprise an institutional link (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure showing the setting, conceptual frameworks, intervention elements and outcomes for the Count Me In project.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual framework and study design.

The research team partnered with local community organizations including health services, local government, and a range of sports clubs to co-design and support the project. Bicultural/bilingual Community Support Coordinators, representing the main local language groups (Urdu and Arabic) were employed through project partners to recruit families, link them to participating clubs, and provide ongoing support. In collaboration with the research team and partners, they were also involved in addressing ongoing challenges, such as with registration, communication, transport, or cost (e.g. negotiating reduced fees or payment plans with the club). The Count Me In intervention has been described in detail by Young and Block (2023) in a paper that also details its effectiveness in supporting participation and some of the qualitative findings concerning participant experiences. The PAR cycle enabled the project team to respond to early findings during the course of the project. Responses included the development of education materials for families regarding the expectations involved in participating at a sports club; and for clubs around how to create an inclusive environment for Muslim families through the provision of Halal food and restriction of alcohol at junior events (Young and Block 2023). Here, we report quantitative and qualitative findings pertaining to the impact of participation in Count Me In on the development of social connections and social capital and qualitative findings of their relationship to well-being.

METHODS

Mixed methods were used to understand the experiences and impacts of participation in Count Me In. Findings were triangulated from each method and from each stakeholder group: children, parents, sports club personnel, volunteers, and the Community Support Coordinators. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 1646594.1) and informed consent was sought from all participants, including both parent and child consent for children. As detailed below, process data allowed us to track participation (with connection to the club considered a proxy for linking capital). Social network mapping captured changes to bonding and bridging networks (considered proxies for access to bonding and linking capital). Well-being and resilience surveys assessed potential positive health outcomes. Integrating these measures with qualitative data provided insights into the associations between all of these elements and their meaning and value for participants. Figure 1 provides an overview and shows links between the study’s conceptual framework, the intervention, and the research methods.

Quantitative data collection: Child surveys

All project participants were invited to participate in the research, although some families were unable to attend data collection sessions or declined. ‘Rolling recruitment’ beginning in 2016 and continuing across the life of the project also affected survey completion. Baseline surveys were completed by young people as soon as possible after they entered the program and thus extended from February 2016 to July 2017. Follow-up surveys were completed from April to November 2018. Children completed the paper-based survey in groups, either at their sports club or a community centre, with the Community Support Coordinators and researchers providing guidance. The survey content is detailed below.

Demographics and sports participation

Participant demographics included age, gender, country of birth of the participant, their mother and father, languages spoken at home, cultural background, religion, the length of time the participant had resided in Australia, school attended, sports clubs joined, and any additional sports the participant wished to play. Process data were also collected throughout to monitor demographic details of participants on enrolment into the program, type of sport, and level of participation.

Social network mapping

Individual egocentric social network maps were included to assess the program’s impact on the extent and structure of participating children’s social networks (Block et al. 2013, Rassaby et al. 2024). We identified sites of relevance to young people’s social capital as family, school, and the broader community (Morrow 2001, Mori et al. 2022). Children were asked ‘How many people can you talk to about things that matter to you?’ for each of six categories: family in Australia, family overseas, kids at school, kids in the community, adults at school, and adults in the community (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Diagram of the social network mapping tool used in the study.

Open in a new tab

Social network mapping tool.

Personal Well-being Index

The Personal Well-being Index (PWI-SC) for children (Cummins and Lau 2005) was used to assess subjective well-being. It contains an initial question assessing how happy the respondent is with ‘life as a whole’, and nine further questions corresponding to the standard of living, personal health, achievement in life, personal relationships, personal safety, feeling part of the community, and future security. Each item was rated on a 10-point scale (0 = very sad; 10 = very happy).

As per scale guidelines, item responses were standardized into units of a 0–100 point distribution, aggregated, and averaged to form a personal well-being score for each participant. Internal consistency was acceptable based on Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75.

Child and Youth Resilience Measure

The 12-item, 3-point scale version of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM )(Liebenberg et al. 2013) was used at baseline to assess the resources that support resilience (individual, relational, communal, and cultural) available to individuals. This measure asks respondents to rate the extent to which a range of statements are true on a 3-point scale (1 = no; 2 = sometimes; 3 = yes). Items were aggregated and averaged to produce a resilience score for each participant.

The 12-item, 5-point version of the CYRM was introduced in the follow-up phase in response to emerging evidence that this was likely to increase the sensitivity of the measure to capture change over time (and our optimistic but erroneous assumption that ongoing recruitment would enable this to function as a second baseline). This measure asks respondents to rate the extent to which a range of statements are true on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 = a little bit; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = always). Items were aggregated and averaged to produce a resilience score. Internal consistency was acceptable based on Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics are presented for baseline and follow-up. Retention and attrition comparisons were conducted using independent samples t-test, chi-square test, and independent samples Mann–Whitney U tests as appropriate. To examine change over time, related-samples t-test and related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test/Sign test (dependent upon meeting relevant assumptions) were employed. To visualize change or stability in social network size over time, scores were categorized into an ordinal variable (‘0’ = no contacts, ‘1’ = 1–4 contacts, ‘2’ = 5–9 contacts, ‘3’ = 10+ contacts) and displayed using a Sankey diagram (https://sankeymatic.com/). A Spearman’s correlation was used to examine any association between social network size (ordinal) and age. Finally, a multiple regression was used to predict resilience scores at follow-up based on gender, age, and change in social networks. Social networks of interest as predictors in this model were ‘kids in the community’ and ‘kids at school’. A variable was calculated for each based on whether a respondent’s number of contacts had increased between baseline and follow-up (coded as ‘1’), or whether their social network have decreased or remained unchanged over time (coded as ‘0’).

Qualitative data collection

Qualitative research explored experiences, benefits, challenges, and any unexpected outcomes associated with participation in Count Me In. All program participants were invited to participate in either a semistructured focus group (children and parents) or an interview (club and project personnel). Qualitative data was collected in late 2017 to understand early outcomes and inform ongoing development of the intervention and again at the end of the project in late 2018/early 2019. Focus groups were organized for groups of parents and children participating in each of the most popular clubs. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed with NVivo used as a data management tool.

Focus group and interview data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2019). This involved immersion in the data to identify shared meanings and patterns and iterative inductive and deductive coding informed by theories of social capital, well-being, and integration.

RESULTS

Participants in Count Me In

Program participants comprised 298 young people (from 175 migrant and refugee families) who participated in a sport, with characteristics as follows:

  • Participants were aged 2–16 years with 87% between the ages of 5 and 13 (spread quite evenly across each of those years).

  • 160 (55%) were male and 131 (45%) were female (missing data for 7 participants).

  • Participants reported 9 different cultural backgrounds and attended 46 different schools.

  • Children’s Countries of Birth included Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, New Zealand, and Turkey (missing data for two participants).

  • 82% of participants reported Islam as their religion, with missing data for the remaining 18%.

  • 15.2% of families had resided in Australia from 1 to 4 years; 29.4% from 5 to 10 years; and 30% for 11+ years (missing data 25.4%).

Sports participation

On entry into the program, the overwhelming majority of participants were engaging in club sports for the first time. Process data indicated that 180 (60.4%) of the 298 young people who were engaged in Count Me In were still playing an organized sport at the end of the project. Most were participating at one of the 22 Count Me In partner clubs, which included Cricket, Basketball, Netball, Australian Rules Football, Soccer, Futsal, Badminton, and Little Athletics. A number had also begun participating in other sports including Tennis, Squash, Swimming, and Martial Arts. Qualitative data indicated that at least some of the 87 (29.2%) not playing an organized sport at that time, planned to take up a sport again in the near future. End-of-program data were missing for 31 participants (10.4%) whom we were unable to contact.

Survey findings

Of the 161 participants who completed the baseline measures, 115 completed the follow-up. Analyses for this paper included only those participants aged six years old and over at baseline (n = 131), of whom 98 completed follow-up. Data from children younger than six were excluded as those participants were either just beginning or below school age and were deemed less likely to have fully understood the questions being asked, which was also supported by our observations. At baseline, participants ranged in age from 6 to 15 (9.42 ± 2.35) and the majority identified as male (n = 84; 65.1%). The most common places of birth for child participants were Australia (n = 74; 56.5%) and Pakistan (n = 31; 23.7%). Most participants reported speaking a language other than or in addition to English at home (90.8%).

Descriptive statistics and comparison tests for those retained and lost to follow-up are shown in Table 1 and indicated no significant differences in demographics (age, gender, and proportion born in Australia), personal well-being scores, or the number of people they could talk to about things that matter in the following networks: family in Australia, adults in the community, kids at school, or kids in the community. However, respondents who did not return to complete the follow-up measures identified more family overseas and fewer adults at school they could talk to about things that matter, correlating with qualitative findings that strong transnational ties tended to interrupt participation as families returned to home countries to visit relatives.

Table 1.

Demographics, well-being scores, and social networks: descriptive statistics and comparison tests for the those retained and lost to follow-up

Baseline (retained) N = 98 Baseline (lost to follow-up) N = 33 Follow-up N = 98 Baseline retention and attrition comparison Baseline and follow-up comparison
Demographics and well-being Mean ± SD (min–max)/N (%) Mean ± SD (min–max)/N (%) Mean ± SD (min–max)/N (%)
Age 9.24 ± 2.32 (6–15) 9.94 ± 2.42 (6–14) 10.99 ± 2.51 (7–17) t(129) = 1.47, P = 0.143a
Gender
 Male 61 (63.5%) 23 (69.7%) 61 (63.5%) X2 (1) = 0.41, P = .522b
 Female 35 (36.5%) 10 (30.3%) 35 (36.5%)
Country of birth Australia 59 (60.2%) 15 (45.5%) 59 (60.2%) X2 (1) = 2.19, P = .139b
PWI Score 83.52 ± 10.80 (50–98.89) 87.34 ± 7.38 (70–97.78) 84.75 ± 10.47 (50–100) t(129) = 1.90, P = .060a t(92) = −0.89, P = .376d
Baseline (retained) N = 98 Baseline (lost to follow-up) N = 33 Final follow-up N = 98 Baseline retention and attrition comparison Baseline and follow-up comparison
Social networks Median (min–max) [mean rankc1] Median (min–max) [mean rankc1] Median (min–max) Increase (I)
Decrease (D)
Ties (T)		 Change over time
Family overseas 5 (0–60) [58.94] 9.5 (0–80) [73.65] 10 (0–60) U = 1075.50, z = −1.96, P = .05c1 I = 53
D = 25
T = 10		 z = 2.85
P = .004e1
Family Australia 4 (0–30) 4 (0–13) 5 (1–150) U = 1346.00, z = −0.47, P = .638c2 I = 47
D = 30
T = 13		 z = 1.82
P = .068e2
Adults at school 3 (0–25) [58.40] 3 (0–20) [73.17] 3 (0–32) U = 1060.00, z = −1.99, P =.047c1 I = 52
D = 27
T = 9		 z = 2.42
P = .015e1
Adults in community 5 (0–95) 5 (0–30) 2 (0–30) U = 1566.50, z = .92, P =.359c2 I = 22
D = 56
T = 10		 z = -3.74
P < .001e2
Kids at school 3 (0–50) [61.60] 3.5 (0–25) [69.08] 6 (0–60) U = 1325.50, z = −1.01, P =.312c1 I = 58
D = 25
T = 8		 z = 3.51
P = .001e2
Kids in community 2 (0–60) 3 (0–50) 4 (0–40) U = 1094.00, z = −1.89, P =.059c2 I = 52
D = 27
T = 10		 z = 2.50
P = .012e1
Open in a new tab

Note 1. Baseline retention and attrition comparison: aIndependent samples t-test used to test for mean differences on continuous variables. bChi-square test of homogeneity used to test the difference between binomial proportions. cIndependent-samples Mann–Whitney U test used to determine differences in social network size, with interpretation dependent upon score distribution: c1Based on visual examination, the distributions of social network scores for those retained and lost to follow up were considered not similar, thus analyses examined mean rank rather than median scores; c2Based on visual examination, the distributions of social network scores for those retained and lost to follow up were considered similar, thus analyses examined median scores.

Note 2. Baseline and follow up comparisons: d Independent samples t-test was used to test for mean differences on continuous variables. eBased on paired comparisons using e1related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test (where assumption of symmetrical distributions was met) and e2related samples Sign test (where this assumption was violated).

Social network transition, well-being, and resilience over time

Changes in social network size are displayed in Table 1. Over half the participants reported an increase over time in the number of kids in both school and community, adults at school, and family overseas whom they could talk to about things that matter. These networks all demonstrated a statistically significant median increase in network size. Conversely, over half of participants identified having fewer adults in the community they could talk to a follow-up (when compared to baseline scores). No statistically significant change was observed in the number of family members in Australia participants felt they could talk to. In recognition that children of different ages may have different opportunities for engagement with adults and children outside their home and family, a Spearman’s correlation was conducted on age and ordinal social network size for nonfamily networks. No association was found between age and social network size for adults in community [rs(129) = −0.08, P = .343] or school [rs(129) = −0.07, P = .461], or kids in community [rs(129) = −0.08, P = .387] or school [rs(129) = −0.11, P = .229].

A multiple regression was used to predict resilience scores at follow-up based on gender, age, and change in social networks with other children over time. Assumptions were met with relative independence of residuals (Durbin–Watson statistic = 1.70); homoscedasticity; collinearity statistics, standardized residuals, and studentized deleted residuals within the acceptable range; no problematic leverage values or influential points; and approximate normal distribution of standardized residuals. The model was not statistically significant, with age, gender, and increase in connections to kids at school and in the community not found to significantly predict resilience scores at follow-up, F(4, 75) = 1.75, P = .148.

Given the salience of children’s relationships with other children and of having at least one social tie, we undertook additional analyses of the network categories: ‘Kids in the community’; and ‘Kids at school’. As shown in the figures below for each of these categories, when comparing the difference between baseline and follow-up, the trend was for fewer respondents to say that there was no person they could talk to about important things. Figure 3 shows that at baseline, 38 participants (39%) reported that they had no other ‘kids in the community’ they could talk to, and this dropped to 18 participants (18%) at follow-up. Figure 4 shows that at baseline, 26 participants (27%) reported that they had no other ‘kids at school’ they could talk to about things that matter, and this dropped to 4 participants (4%) at follow-up. These changes for young people who moved from zero to one or more people they could talk to about important things in their school and/or community networks are likely to be more personally meaningful than seeing a similar size increase for individuals who already had large networks.

Figure 3.

A diagram showing the change in social network size over the course of the project when children were asked how many kids in the community they could talk to about important things.

Open in a new tab

‘How many people can you talk to about things that Matter?’: kids in the community.

Figure 4.

A diagram showing the change in social network size over the course of the project when children were asked how many kids at school they could talk to about important things.

Open in a new tab

‘How many people can you talk to about things that Matter?’: kids at school.

As shown in Table 2, a trend was observable whereby scores for well-being (PWI) tended to decline and resilience scores (CYRM) were lower for the small number of children whose ties to other children in each setting remained at zero from baseline to follow-up. Conversely, for those children whose ties increased from zero to one or more, scores increased and were higher for these two measures respectively. In light of the small sample size, difference tests were not conducted. It should also be noted that there were no respondents who continued to have no other kids to talk to at both school and community.

Table 2.

Participants who identified no kids at school or in the community to speak with at baseline

Number of ties over time N (%) Baseline Follow-up
Well-being (PWI) Well-being (PWI) Resilience (CYRM)
Mean ± SD (min–max) Mean ± SD (min–max) Mean ± SD (min–max)
Kids at school (N = 26) Unchanged at 0 1 (3.8%) 66.67 ± 0 (66.67–66.67) 64.44 ± 0 (64.44–64.44) 49.00 ± 0 (49.00–49.00)
Increased to ≥1 25 (96.2%) 82.11 ± 12.55 (52.22–96.67) 83.07 ± 11.45 (60.00–100.00) 49.73 ± 5.69 (35.00–59.00)
Kids in community (N = 38) Unchanged at 0 8 (21.1%) 81.35 ± 15.56 (58.89–95.56) 78.33 ± 7.77 (63.33–86.67) 47.50 ± 4.47 (42.00–54.00)
Increased to ≥1 30 (78.9%) 80.04 ± 11.27 (52.22–96.67) 82.96 ± 10.70 (60.00–100.00) 50.00 ± 4.84 (35.00-59.00)
Open in a new tab

Qualitative findings

Nine focus groups with 37 adults and 32 young people and 5 interviews with individual stakeholders (club representatives and Count Me In staff or volunteers) were conducted in 2017. Twelve focus groups with 32 adults and 52 young people and 4 interviews with individual stakeholders were conducted in late 2018/early 2019. Focus group participants represented the full range of Count Me In participants with respect to age and cultural background. While both mothers and fathers were invited to attend focus groups, only mothers responded to the general invitation, so additional recruitment efforts were implemented to conduct a fathers’ focus group, attended by six participants.

A combination of inductive and deductive coding generated themes related to the success of the Count Me In model for addressing participation barriers, and experiences of sports participation. The employment of bicultural community support coordinators, who functioned literally as social bridges between migrant community members and sports clubs, was key to successfully supporting participation. They introduced families to participating clubs and alerted the broader project team to ongoing challenges. These were associated with structural factors such as cost and access to transport; (sometimes gendered) assumptions and expectations about sports participation that often differed between those running the sports clubs and migrant families; and examples of institutional and interpersonal racism. We were often, although not always, able to then at least partially address these barriers through collective problem-solving and measures such as discounted fees, carpooling, and education of both families and clubs (see Young and Block 2023). Despite some remaining challenges, experiences were reported by participants to be predominantly positive. Themes related to the impact of sports participation on well-being and social connectedness are reported below.

Social, physical, and mental well-being

Children and their parents readily linked physical and mental well-being and social connectedness to each other and attributed improvements to sports participation. As one young participant put it:

You become more active and you’re lively. So… you’re not lazy. So, at school you can focus more on stuff. If you have a healthy body, you have a healthy mind. (young person)

Parents particularly appreciated the fact that playing sports got their children away from their ‘screens and online activities’ and frequently explicitly associated this with both health and social benefits. One mother described dramatic changes to her son’s behaviours and moods after he began playing sport:

I was so worried last year [before Count Me In] because he just came back from school and watching TV, and especially [bed] time. He’d say ‘I’m not ready to sleep. I’m not tired. I’m not sleepy’. And, read a book, iPad, and hours awake… and I found the soccer and he joined, and he feel tired, two days of soccer, and all relaxed. He would come back from soccer, take a shower and homework, and then relaxing.

She expanded on how concerned she had been about his previous sleep patterns and also described the changes to his social life after he started soccer:

I had a habit to wake up and look if he’s sleeping, and he’d go ‘Mum, what are you doing here?’… He said ‘No mum. I don’t know why. I’m not feeling sleepy’. Morning time, every morning, ‘I’m tired. I’m tired’… After [starting soccer] he sleeping, because he feels tired [in the evening] again. One more thing. He want to go outside and play more with the friends. He could phone the friends and say ‘Let’s go outside and play soccer’. (mother)

Parents attributed benefits such as learning about teamwork, problem-solving, sharing, punctuality, and persistence to sports participation. In the following quote, a father suggested that life lessons associated with resilience, such as learning to accept ‘wins and losses’ were also important outcomes of participation.

I feel like not only it’s benefit for health and the other family benefits, also… life experience like accepting wins and losses makes them better for their future. They need a kind of acceptance in their whole life to accept a win or loss. (father)

Strengthening bonding connections

Parents in several focus groups spoke about how sports participation had improved relationships within the family.

It’s also good for the parents because they spend some more time with their kids outside instead of watching screens all the time at home. I think it’s better for the whole family. (mother)

In the fathers’ focus group, one participant explained that in their family/ies, mothers generally spent much more time with their children and assumed responsibility for organizing all their activities. He recognized that this had left him feeling quite ‘distant’ from his own children and that he now had more to talk about with his daughter since she began participating in sports. Another interviewee reported that a mother had told her that her children now spoke more with their grandparents overseas, as sport had become a topic over which they could connect and bond.

Building bridging connections

Many children and parents spoke about how much they valued new and broader social connections created through participating in Count Me In.

Connection with the community. It also creates the conversation between the kids as well because they know each other’s families and they know each other. (father)

It’s very different to what you think… You get to meet a lot of different people with lots of teams. You get to learn your opponents and communicate. (young person)

Noted by several participants, children’s newfound sociability extended beyond formal practice and match sessions. This extension was emphasized in the following quote from a parent who had observed a marked increase in her son’s social confidence since he had begun playing cricket.

Being social. Most of the kids don’t speak to other kids or don’t have much confidence to speak to other kids or elders. They’re [now] talking to many people multicultural and listening to so many people. It’s social… My son totally changed this year… He becomes social. (mother)

Many of the children who participated in Count Me In attended Islamic schools where they predominantly mixed with children and families from a similar background to their own. In almost every focus group with parents, participants discussed how much they appreciated the fact that participating in community sports offered their children the opportunity to develop more diverse cross-cultural connections beyond their own religious and ethnic communities. Just two of many similar quotes are provided below.

They learn to communicate with others, it’s very important for kids to be participating where we get exposure to other cultures or other people coming from different walks of life, from different religions, from different backgrounds. (mother)

Our kids are actually going to [Islamic] schools as well… picking up preferences in terms of what we as parents want but it still confines them to a lack of exposure to certain communities… it’s through sports that they can have exposure to mingle with other locals as well. (father)

Expanding connectedness for the whole family

Parents also relayed that their children’s sports participation had helped build connections for themselves and other members of the family.

The good part is that [it] is not only kids who go out; it’s a physical activity for the whole family. We are sitting here, the wife comes here, the daughters they move around… By meeting the people, you get to know lots of people. (father)

DISCUSSION

This research drew on social capital theories to design and evaluate an intervention tailored for migrant and refugee families facing barriers to sports participation. In doing so we address evidence gaps related to the lack of intervention studies and attention to the context in social capital research (Shiell et al. 2020): the mechanisms through which social capital may be generated for specific groups likely to benefit from such interventions (Villalonga-Olives et al. 2018); the relative lack of research into how children develop and operationalize social capital (Morgan et al. 2021); and insufficient theorization of many sports interventions (Bolton et al. 2018, Coalter 2021). The research design and analysis drew primarily on Bourdieu’s conceptualization of social capital, which emphasizes the resources embedded in networks that accrue to individual members, as well as the capacity for sociability (Bourdieu 1986, Morrow 2001). Through the findings reported above, we have aimed to articulate how social capital theory can be translated into interventions that support the well-being and health of potentially marginalized individuals and communities.

Using mixed methods allowed us to gain an understanding of how social capital accessed through community sport was operationalized by young people and their families. Social network mapping provided data on the composition of young people’s networks, while qualitative data illuminated the meaning of those connections. Quantitative findings demonstrated that participation generated growth in social networks for young people from CARM migrant backgrounds. This finding is important as it addresses questions about the direction of associations between social connectedness and sports. Our study suggests that interventions to support sports participation can generate social capital, rather than it simply being the case that those with more a priori social connections are more likely to participate. While we did not observe significant changes in young people’s subjective well-being or resilience measures, qualitative analyses showed parents and young people experienced highly valued social benefits along with perceived physical and mental health gains from their participation. It is possible that measuring statistically significant changes to relatively distal outcomes such as well-being and resilience, which are subject to a wide range of influencing factors, may need longer timeframes or a larger sample.

Moreover, as suggested by the qualitative findings, profound impacts may have occurred for young people who had low levels of well-being and connection at the outset but be difficult to demonstrate across the sample. Ties to ‘kids in the community’ and ‘kids at school’ represent connections beyond the family and were used in our social mapping survey as proxy indicators of access to bridging social capital. Our network mapping showed that most young people who listed no people in these categories whom they could talk to about important things at the beginning of the intervention gained at least one bridging network tie by the end. We also observed a trend towards improvement in subjective well-being and resilience scores amongst this group, although the size of this sample did not allow for statistical difference testing. These findings indicate a need for further research into the potential benefits of social capital interventions for young people whose networks are particularly constrained as they likely have the most to gain.

Our research indicated that sports participation provided opportunities for young people to develop and practise skills associated with sociability (Bourdieu 1986, Morrow 2001) and to strengthen and establish networks beyond the home and family. Parents reported that having a common topic of interest to discuss, in this case, sport, boosted the quality and quantity of their children’s intergenerational interactions with themselves and other family members as well as their sociability in school and community settings. Findings suggest that participation in mainstream sports clubs also generated cultural capital for children and their families—understood as a greater understanding of and familiarity with the dominant culture (Smith et al. 2019). Development of new bridging connections beyond their own family, ethnic and religious school communities were highly valued by parents and young people and, according to literature, are also deemed likely to bring future benefits (Morrow 2001, Bajo Marcos et al., 2024). As noted earlier, relatively little research has focussed on children’s social capital. Bridging capital for adults is often equated with instrumental benefits such as access to information, new knowledge, and economic opportunities. Scholars have argued for the importance of attending to the subjective aspects of social capital and inclusion for young people, including the quality of relationships, social participation, and associated well-being (Riffi and Spaaij 2021). Our qualitative findings suggest that for children in this research, there were also important and health-enhancing affective benefits such as a sense of enhanced well-being, belonging, and inclusion (Morgan et al. 2021).

The sports environment in this study in many ways functioned as a ‘third space’ supporting a psychological sense of community and social capital development (Littman 2022). As noted in the introduction, scholars have contended that sports should be seen as comprising a site for potential positive social experiences rather than the cause of positive social outcomes (Coalter 2013, Moreau et al. 2018). Our qualitative findings suggest that sports participation may however have some additional specific and synergistic benefits. Both parents and children discussed the physical and mental health-enhancing impacts of increased physical activity—reduced screen time, better sleep, and greater ability to concentrate at school for example. One focus group also felt strongly that learning how to win and lose and be part of a team were important life lessons that would support their children’s resilience.

Strengths and limitations

The mixed methods design provided insights into the extent and development of social networks as well as their value for participants. Insights from mixed methods also offset the lack of a comparison group, which would have been difficult, if not impossible, to constitute in a valid way given the community-based participatory approach. The project’s participatory approach allowed the intervention to be responsive and adapted to the target population group throughout and this was invaluable for recruitment and retention in the study as well as for maximizing benefits for study participants. This flexibility was also however a limitation. Rolling recruitment meant data collection was complex and times between baseline and follow-up surveys were varied. The decision to change the CYRM measure from a 3-point scale to a 5-point scale was made to enhance data quality and in the belief that we would be able to use the latter for baseline measurements with later recruits. However, capacity constraints associated with our community support coordinators meant that this was not ultimately possible so baseline and follow-up resilience measures were not directly comparable.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that participation in mainstream sports clubs can support positive bonding and bridging social capital development for CARM migrant young people and their families. Participants highly valued the diversity of connections created through club sports, suggesting that policies and health promotion efforts should support opportunities for this type of participation in addition to participation in informal and ethno-specific sports. Our findings suggest that designing social capital interventions with a sound theoretical basis, that respond to clear evidence on barriers to participation can successfully generate positive outcomes. Participatory research approaches are also recommended to ensure interventions are tailored and responsive to community needs and experiences. Further research, including follow-up studies with participants in interventions such as this, is needed to understand the longer-term health-enhancing impacts of social capital interventions for those with constrained social networks at risk of marginalization. Such research should also explore how the social networks that are generated are operationalized over the longer term to generate expected social capital benefits.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge, the input from the broader Count Me In team. A special mention needs to go to our Community Support Coordinators—Sarwat Nauman, Zeina Zogheib, and Naz Asim, and the parent volunteers Hureen Saaed, Aisha Nadeem, and Naz Asim, who were all vital to engaging the community and the project’s success. We would like to thank the numerous organizational partners Merri Health, Moreland City Council, Hume City Council, Arabic Welfare, Centre for Multicultural Youth, Fawkner Primary School, Badminton Victoria and other members of the Advisory Group, and key personnel from the participating sports clubs. Finally, we thank the young people and families who participated so enthusiastically in this project and contributed to this research.

Contributor Information

Karen Block, Nossal Institute for Global Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Naarm, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Robyn Molyneaux, Nossal Institute for Global Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Naarm, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Dana Young, Nossal Institute for Global Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Naarm, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Author contributions

The authors meet the ICJME criteria as follows: Karen Block: Substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Dana Young: Substantial contribution to the design of the work; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work; reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Robyn Molyneaux: Substantial contribution to the analysis and interpretation of data for the work; drafting sections of the work and reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding

This project was enabled due to funding received from a VicHealth Innovation Grant; a University of Melbourne Early Career Researcher Grant; The Melbourne Social Equity Institute; Merri Health; and Moreland City Council. Substantial in-kind support was received from all community organizational partners.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Ethics statement

This study received full ethical approval from the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 1646594.1). Informed consent was obtained from all participants and consent forms have been retained.

Data availability

The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to ethical concerns for the privacy of individuals that participated in the study. Limited de-identified data may be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Adedeji  A.  Social capital and migrants’ quality of life: a systematic narrative review. J Int Migr Integr  2021;22:87–101. 10.1007/s12134-019-00724-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ager  A, Strang  A.  Understanding integration: a conceptual framework. J Refug Stud  2008;21:166–91. 10.1093/jrs/fen016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Agergaard  S.  Rethinking Sports and Integration: Developing a Transnational Perspective on Migrants and Descendants in Sports. London, UK: Routledge, 2018. 10.4324/9781315266084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen  MH, Ottesen  L, Thing  LF.  The social and psychological health outcomes of team sport participation in adults: an integrative review of research. Scand J Public Health  2019;47:832–50. 10.1177/1403494818791405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Australian Sports Commission. Participation in Sport. Australian Sports;  Commission. 2022. https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0009/1091493/Participation-in-sport-465383082_thumb.jpg (25 October 2024, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  6. Bajo Marcos  E, Fernández García  M, Serrano Sanguilinda  I. A theoretical framework of the integration and well-being of migrant and refugee minors in Europe. Revista Española de Sociología  2024;33:1–22. 10.13039/501100000781 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Block  K, Gibbs  L.  Promoting social inclusion through sport for refugee-background youth in Australia: analysing different participation models. Soc Incl  2017;5:91–100. 10.17645/si.v5i2.903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Block  K, Warr  D, Gibbs  L  et al.  Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: reflections from the field. J Refug Stud  2013;26:69–87. 10.1093/jrs/fes002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolíbar  M.  Social capital, human capital and ethnic occupational niches: an analysis of ethnic and gender inequalities in the Spanish labour market. Palgrave Commun  2020;6:1–9. 10.1057/s41599-020-0397-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolton  N, Martin  S, Grace  C  et al.  Implementing a theory of change approach to research sport participation programmes targeting ‘hard to reach’ groups. Int J Sport Policy Politics  2018;10:761–77. 10.1080/19406940.2018.1476397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bourdieu, P.  The forms of capital. In: Richardson  JG (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY, USA: Greenwood Press, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun  V, Clarke  V.  Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health  2019;11:589–97. 10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Coalter  F.  ‘There is loads of relationships here’: developing a programme theory for sport-for-change programmes. Int Rev Sociol Sport  2013;48:594–612. 10.1177/1012690212446143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Coalter  F.  The evolution of evaluation: from the black box to programme theory. In: Theebom  M, Schaillée  H, Roose  R, Willems  S, Bradt  L, Lauwerier  E (eds.), Community Sport and Social Inclusion. London, UK: Routledge, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cummins  RA, Lau  ALD.  Personal Wellbeing Index—School Children (PWI-SC) (English) Manual. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, Reviewed May 2006. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cunningham  R, Bunde-Birouste  A, Rawstorne  P  et al.  Young People’s Perceptions of the Influence of a Sport-for-Social-Change Program on Their Life Trajectories | Article | Social Inclusion. 2020. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/2828 (14 February 2025, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  17. Diversity Council of Australia. CARM Women in Leadership. Diversity Council Australia. 2023. https://www.dca.org.au/research/culturally-and-racially-marginalised-carm-women-in-leadership (25 October 2024, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  18. Domínguez  S, Arford  T.  It is all about who you know: social capital and health in low-income communities. Health Sociol Rev  2010;19:114–29. 10.5172/hesr.2010.19.1.114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Eime  R, Young  J, Harvey  J  et al.  A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for adults: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act  2013;10:135. 10.1186/1479-5868-10-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Field, J.  Social Capital. London, UK: Routledge, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  21. Flensner  KK, Korp  P, Lindgren  E-C.  Integration into and through sports? Sport-activities for migrant children and youths. Eur J Sport Soc  2021;18:64–81. 10.1080/16138171.2020.1823689 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goswami  H.  Social relationships and children’s subjective well-being. Soc Indic Res  2012;107:575–88. 10.1007/s11205-011-9864-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jeanes  R, Spaaij  R, Penney  D  et al.  Managing informal sport participation: tensions and opportunities. Int J Sport Policy Politics  2019;11:79–95. 10.1080/19406940.2018.1479285 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnston  LD, Delva  J, O’Malley  PM.  Sports participation and physical education in american secondary schools: current levels and racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities. Am J Prev Med  2007;33:S195–208. 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Liebenberg  L, Ungar  M, LeBlanc  JC.  The CYRM-12: a brief measure of resilience. Can J Public Health  2013;104:e131–5. 10.1007/BF03405676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Littman  DM.  Third places, social capital, and sense of community as mechanisms of adaptive responding for young people who experience social marginalization. Am J Community Psychol  2022;69:436–50. 10.1002/ajcp.12531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. McDonald  B, Spaaij  R, Dukic  D.  Moments of social inclusion: asylum seekers, football and solidarity. In: Schaillée  H, Haudenhuyse  R, Bradt  L (eds.), The Potential of Community Sport for Social Inclusion. London, UK: Routledge, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  28. McPherson  KE, Kerr  S, McGee  E  et al.  The association between social capital and mental health and behavioural problems in children and adolescents: an integrative systematic review. BMC Psychol  2014;2:7. 10.1186/2050-7283-2-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Moore  S, Kawachi  I.  Twenty years of social capital and health research: a glossary. J Epidemiol Community Health  2017;71:513–7. 10.1136/jech-2016-208313, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26164468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moreau  N, Lévesque  JT, Molgat  M  et al.  Opening the black box of a sports-based programme for vulnerable youth: The crucial role of social bonds. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health  2018;10:291–305. 10.1080/2159676X.2018.1430060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Morgan  A, Svedberg  P, Nyholm  M  et al.  Advancing knowledge on social capital for young people’s mental health. Health Promot Int  2021;36:535–47. 10.1093/heapro/daaa055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mori  H, Takahashi  M, Adachi  M  et al.  The association of social capital with depression and quality of life in school-aged children. PLoS One  2022;17:e0262103. 10.1371/journal.pone.0262103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Morrow  V.  Young people’s explanations and experiences of social exclusion: retrieving Bourdieu’s concept of social capital. Int J Sociol Soc Pol  2001;21:37–63. 10.1108/01443330110789439 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nathan  S, Kemp  L, Bunde-Birouste  A  et al.  ‘We wouldn’t of made friends if we didn’t come to Football United’:the impacts of a football program on young people’s peer, prosocial and cross-cultural relationships. BMC Public Health  2013;13:399. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Nesse  M, Agergaard  S, Piggott  LV.  Young refugees’ experiences of accumulating horizontal and vertical social capital through organised and informal sports. Int Rev Sociol Sport  2024;59:642–59. 10.1177/10126902231217941 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nielsen  G, Hermansen  B, Bugge  A  et al.  Daily physical activity and sports participation among children from ethnic minorities in Denmark. Eur J Sport Sci  2013;13:321–31. 10.1080/17461391.2011.635697 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. O’Donnell  AW, Stuart  J, Barber  BL  et al.  Sport participation may protect socioeconomically disadvantaged youths with refugee backgrounds from experiencing behavioral and emotional difficulties. J Adolesc  2020;85:148–52. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Portes  A.  Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol  1998;24:1–24. 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Putnam  RD.  Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rassaby  M, Shakya  HB, Fowler  JH  et al.  Application of an egocentric social network approach to examine changes in social connections following treatment for anxiety and depression: a novel measurement tool for clinical trials research? Social Sci Med (1982)  2024;350:116914. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Riffi  AE, Spaaij  R.  Problematising the concept of social inclusion through sport: opportunities and challenges through the lens of aspirations and capabilities. In: Theebom  M, Schaillée  H, Roose  R, Willems  S, Bradt  L, Lauwerier  E (eds.), Community Sport and Social Inclusion. London, UK: Routledge, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rodgers  J, Valuev  AV, Hswen  Y  et al.  Social capital and physical health: an updated review of the literature for 2007–2018. Social Sci Med (1982)  2019;236:112360. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sabbe  S, Bradt  L, Roose  R.  Facilitating conditions for establishing social cohesion through structural approaches in community sport. In: Theebom  M, Schaillée  H, Roose  R, Willems  S, Bradt  L, Lauwerier  E (eds.), Community Sport and Social Inclusion. London, UK: Routledge, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shiell  A, Hawe  P, Kavanagh  S.  Evidence suggests a need to rethink social capital and social capital interventions. Social Sci Med (1982)  2020;257:111930. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith  R, Spaaij  R and Mcdonald  B.  Migrant integration and cultural capital in the context of sport and physical activity: a systematic review. J Int Migr Integr  2019;20:851–68. 10.1007/s12134-018-0634-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Spaaij  R.  Beyond the playing field: experiences of sport, social capital, and integration among Somalis in Australia. Ethn Racial Stud  2012;35:1519–38. 10.1080/01419870.2011.592205 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Spaaij  R, Broerse  J, Oxford  S  et al.  Sport, refugees, and forced migration: a critical review of the literature. Front Sports Act Living  2019;1:1–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Spaaij  R, Ravi  A, Magee  J  et al.  ‘Our right to play’: how Afghan women navigate constraints, agency, and aspirations on and off the soccer field. Am Behav Sci  2024;00027642241261242. 10.1177/00027642241261242 (21 October 2024, date last accessed). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Spaaij  R, Schaillée  H.  Inside the black box: a micro-sociological analysis of sport for development. Int Rev Sociol Sport  2021;56:151–69. 10.1177/1012690220902671 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Strang  AB, Quinn  N.  Integration or isolation? Refugees’ social connections and wellbeing. J Refug Stud  2021;34:328–53. 10.1093/jrs/fez040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Szreter  S, Woolcock  M.  Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int J Epidemiol  2004;33:650–67. 10.1093/ije/dyh013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ungar  M.  Community resilience for youth and families: facilitative physical and social capital in contexts of adversity. Child Youth Serv Rev  2011;33:1742–8. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Villalonga-Olives  E, Kawachi  I.  The dark side of social capital: a systematic review of the negative health effects of social capital. Social Sci Med (1982)  2017;194:105–27. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Villalonga-Olives  E, Wind  TR, Kawachi  I.  Social capital interventions in public health: a systematic review. Social Sci Med (1982)  2018;212:203–18. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wakefield  SEL, Poland  B.  Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of social capital in health promotion and community development. Social Sci Med  2005;60:2819–32. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Warr  DJ.  Social networks in a ‘discredited’ neighbourhood. J Sociol  2005;41:285–308. 10.1177/1440783305057081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wijtzes  AI, Jansen  W, Bouthoorn  SH  et al.  Social inequalities in young children’s sports participation and outdoor play. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act  2014;11:155. 10.1186/s12966-014-0155-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Woolcock  M.  The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian J Policy Res  2001;2:11–17. [Google Scholar]
  59. Young  D, Block  K.  Count me in: a sports participation intervention promoting inclusion for young people from migrant backgrounds in Australia. Sport Soc  2023;26:1227–49. 10.1080/17430437.2022.2119846 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Young  D, Block  K, Gibbs  L.  Developing social capital through sport? The case for an intersectional lens. Int Rev Sociol Sport  2024;10126902241278743. 10.1177/10126902241278743 (18 October 2024, date last accessed). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ziersch  A, Walsh  M, Due  C.  ‘Having a good friend, a good neighbour, can help you find yourself’: social capital and integration for people from refugee and asylum-seeking backgrounds in Australia. J Ethn Migr Stud  2023;49:3877–99. 10.1080/1369183x.2023.2177628 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Zuckerman  SL, Tang  AR, Richard  KE  et al.  The behavioral, psychological, and social impacts of team sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Sports Med  2021;49:246–61. 10.1080/00913847.2020.1850152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to ethical concerns for the privacy of individuals that participated in the study. Limited de-identified data may be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Articles from Health Promotion International are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES