Coaches' and Parents' Perception Regarding Special Olympics' Commitment to the Promotion of Sport for Athletes With Intellectual Disabilities: A Cross‐Sectional Study

ABSTRACT

Background

Involvement of coaches and parents in the management of sport is critical for athletes with Intellectual Disabilities (ID).

Aim

The study aimed to examine coaches' and parents' views on Special Olympics Malawi's (SOM) dedication to developing sport for ID athletes.

Methods

This was a qualitative descriptive study. The study was conducted among coaches and parents of athletes with ID. Data were collected via focus group discussions guided by a structured interview guide.

Results

The results showed that organizations have problems in three main areas: working alone, institutions not doing their jobs well, and employees not being motivated. These themes, which came up in focus groups, show the difference between what SOM says its goal is and what it actually does. Furthermore, the results showed that leaving out important people, like teachers and parents, hurts the bond between an athlete and their coach, weakens trust, and makes it harder for athletes to prepare.

Conclusion

The study findings encourage the participation of coaches and parents in key decision‐making by the SOM to ensure improved participation and performance of athletes with ID in Malawi.

1. Introduction

Approximately 10/1000 people worldwide are living with Intellectual Disability (ID) [1]. ID is generally diagnosed before the age of 22, and it is characterized by limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior [2]. In addition, other authors consider an IQ of less than 70 as a classification of ID. The Olympic Charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities highlight equitable access to physical exercise as a basic human right [3]. Recently, the world has embarked on sports development initiatives recognizing the connectedness of sports management, health promotion, sustainability, sociocultural development, and policy [4]. Despite this acknowledgment, persons with disabilities—particularly those with ID—are still excluded from sports. Social stigma, structural hurdles, and beliefs of incompetence limit their sports participation [5]. However, athletes with and without impairments generally participate for the same reasons—enjoyment, skill development, social connection, and acknowledgment of performance [6]. Despite its inconsistent implementation, sport has great potential to promote inclusivity, well‐being, and empowerment.

The Special Olympics (SO) movement challenges such isolation by providing ID athletes with training, competition, and community connections. With over 5 million registered athletes worldwide, SO programs have improved skills, confidence, and inclusive communities [7]. Transnational research shows that SO promotes self‐efficacy and social inclusion [8]. According to previous research [9], certain disability sport inclusion strategies may replicate paternalistic control methods rather than empower players to exercise autonomy. The issue over whether local SO projects are transformational or restricted by established hierarchies is framed by this tension.

Special Olympics Malawi (SOM) struggles to program due to financial, travel, and technical issues [10]. Research evidence has shown that physical activity is low among people with intellectual disability [11]. In addition to teaching, coaches mentor, role model, and promote inclusivity [12]. Again, parents' logistical assistance, encouragement, and advocacy have been demonstrated to improve athlete engagement and community attitudes toward handicap [13]. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, studies regarding parents' and teachers' perceptions in Malawi are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of parents and coaches regarding the promotion of sports for athletes with ID. The findings of this study are integral to the planning and management of athletes with ID in Malawi and promote participation in sports, hence contributing to social inclusion through the provision of programmatic culture‐specific support for athletes with ID in Malawi.

2. Methods

2.1. Design

The authors used a qualitative descriptive approach. An in‐depth descriptive methodology was used to examine participant experiences without imposing theoretical frameworks [14].

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The study included parents of a child with ID who had competed in the Special Olympics World Games and certified coaches of players with ID who have at least 5 years of experience.

2.3. Setting and Participants

Malawi is a sub‐Saharan country with about 18 million people [15]. Fifteen people were chosen on purpose: six parents and nine coaches.

2.4. Data Collection

The Kamuzu Institute for Sport ran parent and coach focus groups between October 2020 and April 2021. The focus group discussion was held in a closed room at the Kamuzu Institute for Sports Facilities, ensuring that there were no distractions. An experienced external moderator led each 80 min session to reduce facilitator bias and promote balanced participation. The moderator's independence prevented the main study team's expectations from shaping participants' narratives [16].

To ensure turn‐taking and control power imbalances, especially between louder and quieter members, “apple‐passing” was adopted. The team realized that symbolic methods alone cannot abolish hierarchical dynamics in focus groups. To avoid this, the moderator encouraged quieter members to speak out and handled dominating voices. A semi‐structured interview guide was used to examine athletes' access to sport, SOM's role in encouraging participation, and coordination issues. The guide's athlete support and sport participation questions were refined after a small group trial. Analyzes excluded pilot data.

2.5. Data Analysis

The conversations were transcribed word‐for‐word and examined with qualitative content analysis [17]. Two researchers separately coded transcripts line‐by‐line, creating initial codes that were then put together into themes and groups [18]. The inter‐coder agreement was 88%. The process of reflective conversation helped find possible biases and shaped choices about code. Codes were compared and improved by reaching an agreement, which ensured they were reliable. It was even less likely that selective reading would happen when dual coding was used. First, data from the parents' and teachers' groups were looked at separately to show different points of view. Then, the data from both groups were put together into a single theme framework. Three main themes and eight sub‐themes emerged out of this process. (see Results, Table 1).

Table 1.

Themes and sub‐themes.

Theme 1:	Special olympics malawi working in isolation
Sub‐theme 1:1	Limited involvement of stakeholders
Sub‐theme 1:2	Lack of coordination with regional coordinators
Theme 2:	Incompetence/Underperformance
Sub‐theme 2:1	Lack of proper planning
Sub‐theme 2:2	No retention of coaches
Sub‐theme 2:3	Failure to fund‐raise/lobby for additional funds
Theme 3:	Lack of motivation
Sub‐theme 3:1	No allowances for coaches
Sub‐theme 3:2	Inadequate welfare support
Sub‐theme 3:3	Lack of technical support

2.6. Trustworthiness

Member checking allowed participants to verify interpretations, reducing deception. A complete audit trail of coding choices improved dependability and transferability [19].

3. Results and Discussion

In this qualitative study, we identified three main themes and eight sub‐themes from both focus groups (parents and coaches), and these are summarized in Table 1.

3.1. Theme 1: Special Olympics Malawi Operating in Isolation

3.1.1. Sub‐Theme 1.1: Limited Involvement of Stakeholders

Parents and coaches saw their absence from training camps and significant decision‐making processes as a top Special Olympics Malawi (SOM) issue. Despite volunteering and certain coaching credentials, participants were disregarded in favor of the SOM secretariat‐selected personnel. During international competition preparations, parents were refused information, and coaches were side‐lined at crucial periods. Parents said they were not contacted or updated about their children's engagement, while coaches complained they were requested to train athletes at the camp but not allowed to follow them to the World Games. These techniques damaged parental trust and coach–athlete relationships, making athletes feel devalued. Many noted that this omission inhibited volunteer assistance, including fundraising and campaigning, hurting the program's viability.

Generally, Special Olympics is run by volunteers, and I am one of them. I want to be fully involved in the training camps when our athletes are being prepared for the Summer World Games. Sadly, SOM does not want us closer to the sport activities of our children. It is really bad and leaves a lot to be desired the way SOM performs its duties.

(Parent #2)

SOM does not communicate to us anything regarding our children's participation in major competitions. This is very annoying since as parents we need to be furnished with comprehensive information concerning our athletes' involvement in any sport activity.

(Parent #5)

I am assigned to prepare athletes in camp but am not considered to accompany them to the Summer World Games.

(Coach #2)

When athletes come to the training camp, their first experience is to familiarize themselves with their coach, build the coach–athlete relationship, and then adapt to the environment and training system. So replacing a coach who has been with athletes during preparations with someone else that athletes are not used to is unfair.

(Coach #5)

These accounts show how the relationships between the SOM authority and local parties are tense. The fact that teachers and parents were left out goes against global best practices, which say that families and trained trainers should work together to help athletes grow. Parents' support helps athletes build their confidence and skills, and positive relationships between coaches and athletes improve trust, drive, and success. There is also proof from around the world that Special Olympics programs work better when families are involved in making decisions and coaches are present throughout the tournament cycle [20]. The Malawian case, on the other hand, shows how bureaucratic gatekeeping and parallel structures limit citizen agency, which hurts players' chances of success. This trend shows bigger problems in disability sports in Sub‐Saharan Africa, where limited resources and centralized control often make it hard for people to take part [21]. From a constructivist point of view, SOM's actions seem to strengthen authoritarian control instead of giving communities more power, which goes against the organization's stated goal of being welcoming.

3.1.2. Sub‐Theme 1.2: Lack of Coordination With Regional Coordinators

The interview results showed that participants saw a continuous breakdown in the SOM secretariat‐regional coordinator cooperation. Coaches felt marginalized when the national office planned and executed training sessions and contests without consulting regional leaders. This exclusion caused job duplication and animosity and reduced the efficacy of programs to develop sports for intellectually disabled athletes. Parents and coaches highlighted that regional coordinators constitute the operational backbone of Special Olympics at the community level, but their absence in planning and execution hindered efficiency and confidence. Local players were disengaged since Lilongwe's central office made choices and forced them on the areas. They said this method hampered athlete development, discouraged volunteering, and increased coach turnover.

This current secretariat does not recognize the existence of regional coordinators, such that the national director and national sport director would conduct coaches' training in the regionals without involving the regional coordinators or communicating to them about the activities happening in their regions.

(Coach #1)

Sometimes training workshops are brought to our districts, but we only hear about them once they have started. This makes us feel excluded and useless as regional coordinators who know the needs of our athletes.

(Coach #3)

Parents and coaches in the region are often ignored when the secretariat makes decisions. Yet we are the ones who stay with the athletes and know their challenges.

(Parent #4)

When programs come from the top with no consultation, it becomes difficult to mobilize the local community since they see us as irrelevant.

(Coach #6)

The lack of collaboration in SOM shows a top‐down method that goes against the rules of open sports governance around the world. Studies show that regional and community‐level players are necessary to make disability sports programs work since they understand the situation and have support in the community [22]. Leaving them out causes delivery to be broken up and chances for long‐term athletic growth to be lost. International examples from other Special Olympics chapters show that working together with regional directors in a good way keeps athletes, builds trust between parents and athletes, and ensures that training plans are always the same [23]. Also, some researchers say that practices that leave some people out can lead to more hierarchical control, which makes workers less useful and more dependent instead of more helpful [9]. Leaving out regional directors hurts both the effectiveness of the program and its traditional credibility in Malawi, where extended family networks and community leaders play a big role in helping disabled children. From a constructivist point of view, this exclusion shows that centralized power structures that value administrative control over working together are still in place. This goes against SOM's stated goal of encouraging players with ID to be included and given more power.

3.2. Theme 2: Incompetence/Underperformance

3.2.1. Sub‐Theme 2.1: Lack of Proper Planning

Participants regularly reported a lack of formal planning in the SOM secretariat. Respondents said the institution often launched programs without needs evaluations, timetables, or budget allocation methods. Coaches complained that last‐minute announcements made it hard to train athletes. Parents complained that intellectually disabled athletes' transport and lodging were routinely mismanaged. This inattention caused family tension and poor athletic performance in tournaments. Participants also noted that training programs were replicated in some areas but ignored in others, indicating uneven planning. The lack of comprehensive athlete and coach data made planning more reliant on assumptions than evidence. Participants said such gaps indicated poor leadership and a lack of an annual operating plan.

We are always called to training or competitions at the very last minute, with no proper schedule. It makes it impossible to prepare athletes in a structured way.

(Coach #4)

Sometimes the secretariat organizes events without consulting us, and when they come, athletes do not even have the right uniforms or equipment.

(Parent #1)

Plans are not consistent; some districts have several activities while others go for months without anything. It looks like there is no balanced strategy.

(Coach #7)

The organization does not collect proper records of how many athletes or coaches are active, yet they make annual reports with figures that do not match what we see on the ground.

(Coach #9)

These results are in line with other research that has shown how bad planning can hurt disability sports groups. To ensure fairness and long‐term success, research shows that inclusive sports need careful teamwork, resource mobilization, and evidence‐based planning [24]. Andersson et al. [25] also say that correct data and feedback from stakeholders are necessary for good planning, but these things are often missing when resources are limited. International examples, on the other hand, show that when Special Olympics chapters combine community input with strategy planning, player success and retention go up by a lot [8]. The Malawian case shows a difference from these global best practices; it shows a controlled, reactive management style instead of proactive, inclusive planning. Malawi's dependence on extended family and community networks, which could help players by sharing duties and pooling resources, is also missed since there is no organized participation. From a constructivist point of view, this lack of planning makes parents, teachers, and players more dependent on a few officials instead of giving them more freedom to make their own decisions. Therefore, the data shows that SOM's lack of forethought hurts its goal of empowering everyone and leads to widespread underperformance.

3.2.2. Sub‐Theme 2.2: No Retention of Coaches

Coach retention was one of Special Olympics Malawi's (SOM) biggest issues, according to participants. Coaches said they were initially excited, but the lack of recognition, assistance, and absence from crucial events discouraged them. Several reported being ignored for international competition delegations despite training athletes at the neighborhood and district levels. Others felt unappreciated without incentives or professional growth. Parents also reported that players lost trusted instructors during crucial competitions, destroying training camp connections. This turnover cuts athlete development continuity, lowering performance and motivation. Participants remarked that several previous coaches had switched to Paralympic programs or left disability sport due to greater assistance elsewhere. Everyone agreed that SOM risked losing its most experienced employees without defined retention efforts.

Many coaches leave since there are no incentives and no recognition. They sacrifice their time, but the organization does not value them.

(Coach #8)

When athletes prepare with one coach but travel with another, they feel abandoned. This discourages both the athlete and the coach who invested effort in training them.

(Parent #6)

I know colleagues who moved to the Paralympics since at least there they are appreciated. Here, we are always sidelined.

(Coach #3)

Without consistent coaches, athletes lose confidence. They want the familiar person who has guided them through training, not someone new every time.

(Coach #5)

These results back up evidence from around the world that keeping coaches is important for athletes' long‐term growth. Studies have shown that helpful organizations give volunteers a chance to grow professionally and are praised as important for keeping volunteer leaders in mobility sports [20]. On the other hand, settings where people are ignored and left out lead to burnout and turnover [11]. Globally, Special Olympics chapters that include teachers in decision‐making and make sure they are involved at all steps of competition have better results for both athletes and trainers [8].

Since neighborhood networks and volunteer work are important in Malawian culture, the fact that there aren't any official ways to keep coaches is a missed chance. Instead of encouraging dedicated volunteers, SOM's methods make them more disappointed. This is similar to a larger trend in Sub‐Saharan sports systems, where bad management and limited resources make volunteers less committed [21]. From a constructivist point of view, not keeping teachers hurts the joint learning setting that players with ID need, since it breaks up trusted relationships that help with both skill development and mental health support.

3.2.3. Sub‐Theme 2.3: Failure to Fundraise/Lobby for Additional Funds

SOM failure to find and raise extra money was cited by participants as a major problem that makes it hard for its programs to last. People said that getting funding from Special Olympics International wasn't enough to pay for training camps, athlete care, and local events. People who answered said that even though Malawi has a long history of corporate social responsibility and community funding, the SOM leadership rarely got partners, businesses, or government agencies involved to get support. Parents saw that this lack of action made players and their families pay for things like travel, gear, and hospital bills.

Coaches also complained that there weren't any efforts to get long‐term relationships with businesses or civil society groups, which meant that programs were underfunded and disorganized. So, the lack of funding plans wasn't just seen as a lack of money; it was also seen as a sign of institutional inertia that hurt the bigger goal of encouraging people with ID to participate in sports with other people.

The money we receive from Special Olympics International is too little, and the leadership does not make any effort to find local sponsors. Everything stops when the grant runs out.

(Parent #4)

We are always told there is no budget, yet we see other federations managing to lobby companies and government institutions. SOM does not try hard enough.

(Coach #2)

Sometimes parents contribute money for transport or food for athletes since the organization says there are no funds.

(Parent #1)

Fundraising is almost non‐existent; it feels like the leadership just waits for donor money and has no plan for sustainability.

(Coach #7)

These results support previous research suggesting disabled sports groups struggle to raise funds. Research shows that sustainable financing models involve proactive interaction with corporate sponsors, NGOs, and government entities [9]. Insufficient lobbying typically leads to overreliance on foreign funders, eroding local program ownership [26]. Scholars have found that inclusive sport groups that disregard fundraising and campaigning fail to provide fair chances, forcing athletes and families to pay hidden costs [4]. According to international Special Olympics studies, excellent local fundraising and strategic collaborations boost athlete participation and organizational credibility [8]. Failure to create and execute effective fundraising methods for SOM worsens sport inequality for intellectually disabled athletes, especially low‐income ones. This undermines the organization's validity and affects inclusive sport in Malawi.

3.3. Theme 3: Lack of Motivation

3.3.1. Sub‐Theme 3.1: No Allowances for Coaches and Athletes

The people who took part made it very clear that the lack of cash support and praise was a major issue that was discouraging both teachers and players. Respondents said that teachers spent a lot of time at training camps and tournaments but didn't get paid extra for it. Instead, they had to pay for their own travel, meals, and sometimes even lodging. Parents pointed out that athletes were also left alone and didn't get much or any money during events, even though judges often got bigger perks. This uneven sharing of resources made people angry, especially since payments were seen as a basic way to thank people for their hard work and sacrifice. Several participants said that without benefits, many teachers wouldn't have stayed in the program, and players felt ignored and unfairly treated compared to their peers in other sports organizations. So, the lack of permits was seen as both a real problem and a symbolic one, showing that SOM didn't value the work of its community players.

We are told to volunteer, but we also have families to take care of. Without even transport refunds, many of us feel it is not worth it.

(Coach #4)

Athletes travel long distances for competitions and come back with nothing, while officials get big allowances. It is very unfair.

(Parent #3)

Officials always prioritize themselves; their allowances are double what athletes receive. This discourages everyone.

(Coach #1)

Sometimes we parents have to provide pocket money to our children for food during camps since nothing is given to them.

(Parent #2)

These results support the idea that financial incentives keep volunteering and disability sports going. Coaches and athletes in inclusive programs are more engaged when given allowances or small stipends for their time and expenses [9]. Uneven allowance distribution between authorities and grassroots actors might lead to feelings of exploitation and demotivation [23]. Research across sport‐for‐development programs shows that a lack of material support leads to coach and athlete turnover, reducing training continuity and quality. Given widespread poverty and conflicting family needs, disadvantaged populations in Africa typically need financial help to participate in sports [21]. The lack of allowances in SOM reduces motivation and increases inequities by transferring the financial burden onto parents and coaches, compromising the program's inclusion and viability.

3.3.2. Sub‐Theme 3.2: Inadequate Welfare Support

The participants stressed that there was not enough social support for athletes with ID, which was a long‐term problem that made it harder for them to participate and do well. Parents said that players often didn't have access to simple things like healthy food, a way to get to events, medical help, or the right sports gear. Coaches also said that care issues went beyond physical needs and included psychological help, which was not always available in SOM organizations. They said that care should be at the center of protecting players' well‐being and boosting their confidence, but it was only seen as a side problem. Families who were already having a hard time with money had even more problems since welfare benefits weren't given regularly. People who took part said that parents sometimes had to pay for their children's medical bills when they got hurt while training, and some said that players missed out on chances since they couldn't get to or from practice. People thought that SOM wasn't really committed to athlete‐centered growth since they didn't care about them.

Our children sometimes go to competitions without proper meals or refreshments. How can they perform well in such conditions?.

(Parent #4)

When an athlete gets injured, there is no medical support from the organization. Parents are left to deal with hospital bills on their own.

(Parent #2)

We cannot even get basic kits like shoes or uniforms; athletes train in whatever they have, which is discouraging.

(Coach #6)

There is no psychological support for these children, yet they face stigma in society. Sport should be a safe space, but even here, welfare is neglected.

(Coach #9)

These results support worldwide evidence that inclusive sport prioritizes wellbeing. Welfare systems that lack nourishment, transport, and health services hinder intellectually disabled athletes [10]. Since welfare support does not tax families, scholars believe it motivates and retains athletes [27]. Disability sport policy studies show that welfare assistance is both practical and ethical, showing respect and dignity for disabled athletes [5]. Weak welfare support typically limits children's sports participation to families with enough money, like in Malawi [28]. Neglecting athlete welfare in Special Olympics Malawi affects inclusion, motivation, and equality.

3.3.3. Sub‐Theme 3.3: Lack of Technical Support

Participants regularly said that the lack of technical support from Special Olympics Malawi (SOM) was another thing that made it hard to participate and grow. The coaches said they couldn't improve their methods since they didn't have access to new training tools, ongoing professional growth, or mentoring. Parents also said that players were often trained using old or creative methods since they didn't have enough professional support. This put them behind their peers who were in better‐supported sports groups. Respondents stressed that SOM didn't hold many training classes or workshops, and when they did, they were usually led by people who weren't trained. This made people angry, especially more experienced teachers who thought their skills were staying the same. Athletes with intellectual challenges also missed chances to improve their ability and make practice safer since they didn't get detailed training on specific pieces of equipment, like in track and field events. Participants pointed out that professional help was often available through foreign relationships, but the SOM leadership didn't take advantage of these chances.

We were trained many years ago, and there has been no refresher training since then. Without continuous technical support, we cannot keep up with new methods.

(Coach #3)

The athletes are taught using very basic drills. They need proper technical coaching, but we as parents see that this support is missing.

(Parent #5)

I stopped coaching since I felt left behind. There were no workshops, no mentorship, nothing to improve my skills.

(Coach #7)

When equipment is donated, we do not receive guidance on how to use it effectively with children with intellectual disabilities. This leaves us guessing.

(Coach #2)

International scholarship emphasizes the necessity of technical assistance for disability sport coaches and participants. Poor technical structures impede athlete performance and frustrate volunteers, resulting in significant attrition [12]. Academics also stress that technical assistance needs systematic capacity‐building via education, mentorship, and resource allocation [25]. Without such assistance, inclusive sport policies limit skill development and safe participation [9]. Global data from Special Olympics and Paralympic programs shows that continuous technical training improves sports performance and empowers intellectually disabled people [8]. Technical support neglect perpetuates inequalities in Malawi, where resource restrictions leave coaches and players unprepared and undeveloped. Thus, neglecting technical assistance is an operational weakness and a barrier to inclusion, motivation, and athlete well‐being.

3.4. Limitations

The study is not without drawbacks. First, the study included only parents and coaches of elite athletes, but it also brought the possibility of bias by giving more weight to people with a lot of experience and leaving out teachers and parents of non‐elite players with less experience. This kind of limited addition might make it harder to use the results in other situations, but it also makes it easier to look at points of view based on practical knowledge. Furthermore, the qualitative nature of the design hinders us from making conclusions regarding associations and influencing factors related to the phenomenon. Concerning reliability, the study did not employ the internal consistency formula.

4. Conclusion

This study examined how trainers and parents perceive SOM and whether SOM is committed to promoting sports for people with ID. The results showed that organizations have problems in three main areas: working alone, institutions not doing their jobs well, and employees not being motivated. Furthermore, the results showed that leaving out important people, like teachers and parents, hurts the bond between an athlete and their coach, weakens trust, and makes it harder for athletes to prepare. Hence, the study suggests the following recommendations per stakeholder group: for the SOM, they need to encourage the participation of coaches and parents in key decision‐making to ensure improved participation and performance of athletes with ID in Malawi. Moreover, SOM needs to consider parents and coaches as major stakeholders and should regularly have a structured interface to ensure that there is a working relationship between athletes, parents, and coaches. Furthermore, SOM needs to strengthen institutional coordination mechanisms to improve service delivery. For coaches, there is a need to maintain contact with athletes and parents regarding training schedules, upcoming competitions, and athletes' development needs. For parents, they must support athletes' development by encouraging training attendance and competition participation.

Author Contributions

Ivy Kondowe‐Chinangwa: conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, visualization, writing – review and editing, formal analysis. Thokozani Mzumara: writing – review and editing, writing – original draft, methodology. Marie Young: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, supervision, project administration, conceptualization.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Ethics Statement

The University of the Western Cape Biomedical Research Ethics Committee and the Malawi University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee approved the study.

Consent

The study obtained informed consent from all participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Transparency Statement

Ivy Kondowe‐Chinangwa affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained

All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Thokozani Mzumara had full access to all of the data in this study and takes complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.