Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature
BackgroundHigh levels of admitted doping use (43.6% and 57.1%) were reported for two international sport events in 2011. Because these are frequently referenced in evaluating aspects of anti-doping, having high level of confidence in these estimates is paramount.ObjectivesIn this study, we present n...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Sports and Active Living |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.1017329/full |
| _version_ | 1828048605235118080 |
|---|---|
| author | Andrea Petróczi Andrea Petróczi Andrea Petróczi Maarten Cruyff Olivier de Hon Dominic Sagoe Martial Saugy |
| author_facet | Andrea Petróczi Andrea Petróczi Andrea Petróczi Maarten Cruyff Olivier de Hon Dominic Sagoe Martial Saugy |
| author_sort | Andrea Petróczi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | BackgroundHigh levels of admitted doping use (43.6% and 57.1%) were reported for two international sport events in 2011. Because these are frequently referenced in evaluating aspects of anti-doping, having high level of confidence in these estimates is paramount.ObjectivesIn this study, we present new prevalence estimates from a concurrently administered method, the Single Sample Count (SSC), and critically review the two sets of estimates in the context of other doping prevalence estimates.MethodsThe survey featuring the SSC model was completed by 1,203 athletes at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics (WCA) (65.3% of all participating athletes) and 954 athletes at the 2011 Pan-Arab Games (PAG) (28.2% of all participating athletes). At WCA, athletes completed both UQM and SSC surveys in randomised order. At PAG, athletes were randomly allocated to one of the two surveys. Doping was defined as “having knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method.”ResultsEstimates with the SSC model for 12-month doping prevalence were 21.2% (95% CI: 9.69–32.7) at WCA and 10.6% (95% CI: 1.76–19.4) at PAG. Estimated herbal, mineral, and/or vitamin supplements use was 8.57% (95% CI: 1.3–16.11) at PAG. Reliability of the estimates were confirmed with re-sampling method (n = 1,000, 80% of the sample). Survey non-compliance (31.90%, 95%CI: 26.28–37.52; p < 0.0001) was detected in the WCA data but occurred to a lesser degree at PAG (9.85%, 95% CI: 4.01–15.69, p = 0.0144 and 11.43%, 95% CI: 5.31–11.55, p = 0.0196, for doping and nutritional supplement use, respectively). A large discrepancy between those previously reported from the UQM and the prevalence rate estimated by the SSC model for the same population is evident.ConclusionCaution in interpreting these estimates as bona fide prevalence rates is warranted. Critical appraisal of the obtained prevalence rates and triangulation with other sources are recommended over “the higher rate must be closer to the truth” heuristics. Non-compliance appears to be the Achilles heel of the indirect estimation models thus it should be routinely tested for and minimised. Further research into cognitive and behaviour aspects, including motivation for honesty, is needed to improve the ecological validity of the estimated prevalence rates. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T18:59:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-38e5899e90ca4d58858fe21d4fd7d033 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2624-9367 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T18:59:01Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Sports and Active Living |
| spelling | doaj.art-38e5899e90ca4d58858fe21d4fd7d0332023-01-31T11:53:58ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Sports and Active Living2624-93672022-12-01410.3389/fspor.2022.10173291017329Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literatureAndrea Petróczi0Andrea Petróczi1Andrea Petróczi2Maarten Cruyff3Olivier de Hon4Dominic Sagoe5Martial Saugy6School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University, London, United KingdomDepartment of Movement Sciences, Faculty of Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit (KU) Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumWillibald Gebhardt Research Institute, University of Münster, Münster, GermanyFaculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NetherlandsDoping Authority Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel, NetherlandsDepartment of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayResearch and Expertise in anti-Doping Sciences (REDs), Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SwitzerlandBackgroundHigh levels of admitted doping use (43.6% and 57.1%) were reported for two international sport events in 2011. Because these are frequently referenced in evaluating aspects of anti-doping, having high level of confidence in these estimates is paramount.ObjectivesIn this study, we present new prevalence estimates from a concurrently administered method, the Single Sample Count (SSC), and critically review the two sets of estimates in the context of other doping prevalence estimates.MethodsThe survey featuring the SSC model was completed by 1,203 athletes at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics (WCA) (65.3% of all participating athletes) and 954 athletes at the 2011 Pan-Arab Games (PAG) (28.2% of all participating athletes). At WCA, athletes completed both UQM and SSC surveys in randomised order. At PAG, athletes were randomly allocated to one of the two surveys. Doping was defined as “having knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method.”ResultsEstimates with the SSC model for 12-month doping prevalence were 21.2% (95% CI: 9.69–32.7) at WCA and 10.6% (95% CI: 1.76–19.4) at PAG. Estimated herbal, mineral, and/or vitamin supplements use was 8.57% (95% CI: 1.3–16.11) at PAG. Reliability of the estimates were confirmed with re-sampling method (n = 1,000, 80% of the sample). Survey non-compliance (31.90%, 95%CI: 26.28–37.52; p < 0.0001) was detected in the WCA data but occurred to a lesser degree at PAG (9.85%, 95% CI: 4.01–15.69, p = 0.0144 and 11.43%, 95% CI: 5.31–11.55, p = 0.0196, for doping and nutritional supplement use, respectively). A large discrepancy between those previously reported from the UQM and the prevalence rate estimated by the SSC model for the same population is evident.ConclusionCaution in interpreting these estimates as bona fide prevalence rates is warranted. Critical appraisal of the obtained prevalence rates and triangulation with other sources are recommended over “the higher rate must be closer to the truth” heuristics. Non-compliance appears to be the Achilles heel of the indirect estimation models thus it should be routinely tested for and minimised. Further research into cognitive and behaviour aspects, including motivation for honesty, is needed to improve the ecological validity of the estimated prevalence rates.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.1017329/fullathleteperformance enhancementdopingRandomised Response TechniqueprevalenceSingle Sample Count |
| spellingShingle | Andrea Petróczi Andrea Petróczi Andrea Petróczi Maarten Cruyff Olivier de Hon Dominic Sagoe Martial Saugy Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature Frontiers in Sports and Active Living athlete performance enhancement doping Randomised Response Technique prevalence Single Sample Count |
| title | Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature |
| title_full | Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature |
| title_fullStr | Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature |
| title_full_unstemmed | Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature |
| title_short | Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature |
| title_sort | hidden figures revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature |
| topic | athlete performance enhancement doping Randomised Response Technique prevalence Single Sample Count |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.1017329/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andreapetroczi hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature AT andreapetroczi hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature AT andreapetroczi hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature AT maartencruyff hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature AT olivierdehon hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature AT dominicsagoe hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature AT martialsaugy hiddenfiguresrevisitingdopingprevalenceestimatespreviouslyreportedfortwomajorinternationalsporteventsinthecontextoffurtherempiricalevidenceandtheextantliterature |