Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42698044

Self-Report Health Screening Tools in Female Athletes: A Systematic Review of Domain Coverage, Validation, and Use Across Participation Levels.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Female athlete health encompasses multiple interconnected domains; however, the self-report screening tools used to assess these domains have not been comprehensively synthesised. OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify self-report health screening tools used to assess female athlete health, map domain coverage, determine validation reporting, and describe application across participation levels. METHODS: This systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO ( CRD420251056910 ) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) were searched from inception to January 2026 using female health and screening-related terms. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute and National Institutes of Health tools, and findings were synthesised descriptively. Eligible, peer-reviewed studies reported the use, development or validation of self-report health screening tools assessing one or more domains relevant to female health applied in female athlete populations, spanning recreational through elite participation levels. All sports and activities were included. The search was restricted to English language with no date limits. RESULTS: In total, 360 studies (1990-2026) representing 134,506 female participants spanning recreational to elite sport and 273 screening tools were included. Mental health (n = 77, 34.1%), disordered eating (n = 33, 14.6%) and body image (n = 30, 13.3%) predominated. Domains related to female health, including menstrual health, pelvic floor health, pregnancy/postpartum and breast health were comparatively underrepresented. Most studies reported tools were used for risk identification (n = 323, 80.3%). Validation reporting was inconsistent, with half (n = 180, 50%) reporting use of at least one validated tool. Tool use was concentrated in professional and elite sport, with limited inclusion of recreational, masters and disability athlete cohorts. Health literacy constructs were explicitly assessed in 12.5% of studies (n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: Health screening in female athlete populations remains fragmented and uneven in domain coverage, with inconsistent validation reporting. Development of integrated, multi-domain and contextually inclusive screening frameworks is warranted.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Charlotte Steele, Matthew H Simpson, Emily Jacobs, Natalia Galan-Lopez, Lee Taylor, Bryna C R Chrismas. 2026-09-04. Self-Report Health Screening Tools in Female Athletes: A Systematic Review of Domain Coverage, Validation, and Use Across Participation Levels.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-026-02532-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Identifying and Prioritizing Core Components of Relationship Education Programs: a Case Study of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assisted Systematic Review.

The field of prevention science seeks to identify and implement effective strategies to address social, emotional, and health challenges. A critical aspect of this endeavor is determining the core components of prevention programs that drive positive outcomes. This article presents a case study utilizing artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted systematic review methods to identify key components of healthy marriage and relationship education programs. Given the growing body of research in this domain, AI tools offer a promising means to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of literature reviews. This study employed AI to screen, code, and validate research articles, demonstrating its effectiveness in expediting systematic reviews while maintaining high accuracy in inclusion screening. This case study involved a systematic review of 22,028 resources (identified from PsycINFO, Academic Search Ultimate, and Google) and a final data set of 268 relevant studies. AI screening was integral in effectively conducting multiple rounds of screening. However, findings also highlight challenges in AI-assisted qualitative data abstraction, underscoring the continued need for human expertise in complex coding tasks. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on integrating AI into prevention science methodologies and offers insights for optimizing AI applications in systematic reviews.

Artificial Intelligence

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Humans