↓ Skip to main content

Team sport athletes’ perceptions and use of recovery strategies: a mixed-methods survey study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 608)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
57 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Team sport athletes’ perceptions and use of recovery strategies: a mixed-methods survey study
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13102-017-0071-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Crowther, Rebecca Sealey, Melissa Crowe, Andrew Edwards, Shona Halson

Abstract

A variety of recovery strategies are used by athletes, although there is currently no research that investigates perceptions and usage of recovery by different competition levels of team sport athletes. The recovery techniques used by team sport athletes of different competition levels was investigated by survey. Specifically this study investigated if, when, why and how the following recovery strategies were used: active land-based recovery (ALB), active water-based recovery (AWB), stretching (STR), cold water immersion (CWI) and contrast water therapy (CWT). Three hundred and thirty-one athletes were surveyed. Fifty-seven percent were found to utilise one or more recovery strategies. Stretching was rated the most effective recovery strategy (4.4/5) with ALB considered the least effective by its users (3.6/5). The water immersion strategies were considered effective/ineffective mainly due to psychological reasons; in contrast STR and ALB were considered to be effective/ineffective mainly due to physical reasons. This study demonstrates that athletes may not be aware of the specific effects that a recovery strategy has upon their physical recovery and thus athlete and coach recovery education is encouraged. This study also provides new information on the prevalence of different recovery strategies and contextual information that may be useful to inform best practice among coaches and athletes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 243 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 49 20%
Student > Master 40 16%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 5%
Lecturer 11 5%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 79 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 100 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 5%
Psychology 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 86 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2023.
All research outputs
#881,585
of 25,352,304 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#37
of 608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,054
of 318,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,352,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.