Article Text
Abstract
Objectives Meetings promote information sharing, but do not enable full dissemination of details. A systematic search was conducted for abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Association of Applied Sport Psychology Annual Conferences to determine the full-text dissemination rate of work presented in abstract form and investigate factors influencing this rate.
Methods Systematic searches were sequentially conducted to determine whether the abstract-presented work had been published in full-text format in the 5 years following presentation. If a potential full-text publication was identified, information from the conference abstract (eg, results, number of participants in the sample(s), measurement tools used and so on) was compared with the full text to ensure the two entities represented the same body of work. Abstract factors of interest were assessed using logistic regression.
Results Ninety-four out of 423 presented abstracts (22.2%) were published in full text. Odds of full-text publication increased if the abstract was from an international institution, presented in certain conference sections or presented as a lecture.
Conclusion Those attending professional conferences should be cautious when translating data presented at conferences into their applied work because of the low rate of peer-reviewed and full-text publication of the information.
- review
- sport and exercise psychology
- research
- knowledge translation
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding Indiana University School Block Grant, Health Sciences Department.
Data sharing statement Systematic review data are available by contacting the corresponding author.
Contributors SS and SW developed the study and conducted the analyses. SS conducted the review of the conference programmes and the systematic search of published work. SS developed the manuscript. SW provided feedback and contributed to revisions of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent Not required.