Table 2.
Ethics submission considerations unique to many field-based research projects
| Ethical consideration | Potential mitigating solution/strategy |
|---|---|
| Athlete medical safety (physical/mental) during extreme competitions or training settings | Include appropriate medical and safety experts as part of the ethics submission, research protocol and event. For competitions, engage the event medical team, which can operate cooperatively—albeit independently—from the research team |
| Athlete confidentiality | By definition, there are very few world-class athletes [1] (i.e., world-record holders are singular), and by extension, many field-based studies have small participant numbers that can limit athlete confidentiality. Therefore, the consent process needs to highlight that full confidentiality might not always be possible. Nevertheless, the research project should include instructions for both athletes and research team members to avoid sharing information about other athletes without explicit permission (e.g., on social media or in presentations about the project) |
| Invasive procedures and athlete research burden | Research protocols like blood or muscle sampling, or the emotional burden of food tracking, can be especially challenging. Careful consideration and justification of every protocol and method must occur through the lens of a high-performance athlete. Research conducted at any competition must always prioritize performance versus research outcomes |
| Studies involving testing protocols or agents included on anti-doping lists | World-Class/Elite athletes should not be participants, as it will expose them to WADA anti-doping rule violations [2, 3] |
| Corporate sponsors or employed athletes associated with the event or the research | Informed consent must be provided without coercion or undue influence from the researchers, associated team coaches or contractual obligations (e.g., sponsorships). Ideally, the collection of informed consent should be undertaken by someone who is associated with the project, but not in a direct relationship with the athletes or the corporate sponsor. More specifically, athletes should be allowed to “opt-in” or “opt-out” of specific testing procedures/protocols within the research design, without personal ramifications (contractual or otherwise), and with ongoing consent re-evaluated throughout the research study. Where applicable, protocols should also be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov to promote transparency and encourage the full disclosure of research outcomes |
| “Live” data generation and timing of athlete feedback | Many field-based studies implement direct monitoring that generates “live” data. However, “live” research data generated and disclosed to a athlete during a study (such as their pacing, core body temperature or fueling) could inadvertently alter athlete behavior, reducing the ecological validity of the outcomes. Similarly, ‘live’ research data could be used by the medical team to justify withdrawing an athlete from an event for health and safety reasons, with or without their consent. Therefore, as long as it is ethically sensible, we suggest providing data to athletes after study completion |
| “Dual roles”: Research staff who are also athlete support staff (e.g., sport science or medicine practitioners) | Individuals within the project team who are in a “dual role” acting both as a practitioner (e.g., nutrition, mental/physical performance) as well as researcher need to carefully manage ethical and study protocol considerations |