Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to better understand the factors that may improve or hinder the impact of sport for development and peace projects. Sport for development and/or peace (SDP) has been described as an emerging, yet under-theorized research field (Schnitzer et al., 2013). As such, few authors have analyzed the conditions, best practices and processes needed for achieving impact on context through SDP. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap in current knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review was chosen to analyze the focus and findings of the related body of work. Findings – A conceptual model of the dominant SDP process serves as a framework to identify and analyze concepts that may influence SDP impact on context. Moreover, this conceptual model provides insight about an apparent empirical incongruity between the theoretical and practical impact of this dominant SDP process on the ground. Practical implications – This paper opens a debate around the process currently deployed by SDP agencies to influence peace and/or development. Specifically, we question if indoctrinating sport-related values into child athletes, who then somehow influence their communities, is the most cost effective process for sport to contribute to development and/or peace. Originality/value – This paper addresses the paucity of insight about concepts that SDP agencies should implement to impact context. This contribution appears significant in a context of increased competition for funding. As growing number of SDP agencies operating in emerging markets compete for rarifying corporate funding, deploying cost-effective projects for development and peace may provide SDP agencies with a competitive advantage.
The aim of this article is to provide insight on how claims that sport contributes to development or peace are transformed into facts. Beyond a theoretical discussion about how sport for development and peace (SDP) facts are built, this article demonstrates, in rich detail, the subtle art of SDP fact building for funding purposes. Specifically, through an integrative literature review and two case studies, a mix of fact-building actors composed of experts, literature, and allies, is exposed and analyzed. Furthermore, a conceptual model that synthesizes the relationship between the mix of fact-building actors and contextually predisposed funding agencies is also proposed.
Background Accurate self-reported symptomatic toxicity documentation via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is essential throughout cancer treatment to ensure safety and understand therapeutic efficacy. However, the capture of accurate toxicities from patients undergoing radiation therapy is challenging because this is generally provided only at the time of scheduled visits. Objective This study seeks to establish the usability and feasibility of a mobile PRO-CTCAE Administration System (mPROS) to capture toxicities related to radiation therapy. Methods English-speaking adult patients who were undergoing radiation therapy for cancer were enrolled and given a brief demonstration of the Say All Your Symptoms (SAYS) and Symptom Tracking Entry Program (STEP) interfaces of the mPROS app, followed by a patient-use phase where patient actions were observed as they navigated mPROS to enter toxicities. Patient feedback was captured via a semistructured interview and brief questionnaire. Results We enrolled 25 patients (age: mean 60.7 years; females: n=13, 52%; White patients: n=13; 52%; non-Hispanic patients: n=19, 76%; college graduates: n=17, 68%). Patients almost equally preferred the SAYS (n=14, 56%) or STEP (n=11, 44%) interfaces, with 21 patients (84%) agreeing that they would use mPROS to report their symptoms to their health care team and 19 patients (76%) agreeing that they would recommend mPROS to others. Conclusions The mPROS app is usable and feasible for facilitating the patient reporting of radiation therapy–related symptomatic toxicities. A revised version of mPROS that incorporates patient input and includes electronic health record integration is being developed and validated as part of a multicenter trial.
More research on sport for development and peace (SDP) organizations is needed to better understand their actual contributions to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet, the unstable, restricted, or even risky contexts in which many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and SDP agencies sometimes operate often leave researchers to face important challenges to develop effective or feasible methods to work with such organizations. This study aimed to address the ontological and epistemological questions about what should be known about a given context in an organization before setting off on fieldwork. We propose a methodology, based on an actantial model (AM), as a method to analyze the nature and context of a project, to assess the actors involved in the project, and to establish if the global cost (i.e., material, temporal, financial, and physical) for conducting fieldwork is realistic and feasible of all the parties involved in the potential project. To illustrate this process, we analyzed the nature and context of an SDP project in Madagascar as the first step for potential collaborative research. As researchers, we do not want to invest time and energy to build up a fully developed field research project with an NGO in a context where it would not be realistic or feasible to conduct such research. Actually in this context, developing a research protocol without an implementation strategy might not only be detrimental to the researchers, but also to the NGO itself, where resources are often limited. Accordingly, the results from this preliminary field research demonstrate that an AM is a relevant analytical tool for obtaining insights about the context, the actors, and their relationships within an NGO. In conclusion, this model might be a useful instrument for conducting an initial analysis for the preliminary identification of the necessary conditions for the construction of a sustainable empirical research partnership with a given SDP project.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.