4.2 Article

Qualitative investigation of perceived barriers to and enablers of sport participation for young people with first episode psychosis

Journal

EARLY INTERVENTION IN PSYCHIATRY
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 293-306

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eip.12854

Keywords

early intervention; first episode psychosis; functional recovery; life skills; sports

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims The aim and objective of the study was building on a previous call for the development of sport-based life skills interventions for young people with first episode of psychosis (FEP) (Brooke, Lin, Ntoumanis, & Gucciardi, 2018), to explore the barriers and enablers to sport participation for young people with FEP. Method We used a semi-structured interview format to conduct one-to-one interviews with young people (aged 16-25; n = 10) with FEP, and one-to-one interviews and focus groups with their clinicians (n = 33). Questions focused on barriers and facilitators (intrapersonal, interpersonal, psychological, environment, health/safety, logistical) to sport participation young people with FEP. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results Four themes (and 11 sub-themes) emerged from the analysis: (a) the need for sport in FEP recovery (perceived benefits; resource gap); (b) barriers (logistical; psychological); (c) enablers (positive environmental expectations and experiences) and (d) programme design (sport programme/type; life skills training; application to barriers/enablers). Conclusion The participants responded favourably to the idea of using sport to promote recovery post-FEP, and provided an insight into why sport is currently underutilized within FEP recovery efforts. The barriers, enablers, and specific suggestions for how to limit the barriers and strengthen the enablers are valuable for sport-based intervention design, and may be applicable to non-sport-based interventions for people with FEP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available