Systematic Review of Health Organization Guidelines Following the AMSSM 2019 Youth Early Sport Specialization Summit

• Published in: Sports Health Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 127 - 134
• Main Authors: Herman, Daniel C., Nelson, Vicki R., Montalvo, Alicia M., Myer, Greg D., Brenner, Joel S., DiFiori, John P., Jayanthi, Neeru A., Marshall, Stephen W., Kliethermes, Stephanie A., Beutler, Anthony I., Tenforde, Adam S.
• Format: Book Review Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-01-2022
• Subjects: Adolescent; Athletes; Athletic Injuries; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Parents; Special Issue: Training the Adolescent Athlete; Specialization; Sports; Youth Sports; recommendations; sport specialization; athlete development
• ISSN: 1941-7381; 1941-0921
• DOI: 10.1177/19417381211051371

Context:
Youth sport specialization may place young athletes at increased risk for negative impacts to their physical and/or psychological health. In response to these health concerns, several health organizations have created guidelines and position statements to guide parents and practitioners toward best practices for management of the young athlete.
Objective:
To systematically review and synthesize current organizations’ recommendations and guidelines regarding youth sport specialization.
Data Sources:
English-language articles from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2018, in the NCBI Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases.
Study Selection:
Articles that reported on recommendations or interventions by health organizations or health representatives of sports organizations. A total of 56 articles were assessed, with 11 meeting inclusion eligibility criteria.
Study Design:
Systematic review.
Level of Evidence:
Level 4.
Data Extraction:
Two investigators independently identified all recommendations within the results that fit within a 15-item framework encompassing 4 domains: Psychological Development/Approach, Physical Development/Load, Facilities and Resources, and Timing and Monitoring of Specialization.
Results:
Recommendations across organizations were primarily clustered in the Physical Development/Load (43%), Facilities and Resources (48%), and Sport Specialization (55%) domains. In contrast, the Psychological Development/Approach domain had fewer recommendations (20%). The most common recommendations endorsed concepts: “Monitor athlete well-being,” “Youth athletes need access to well-trained, quality coaches,” “Multi-sport participation,” “Limit early organized participation and/or training,” and “Parents require awareness of training, coaching, and best practices.” The level of evidence provided to support a given recommendation varied significantly. The level of detail and the consistency of terms used throughout the results were typically low. Recommendations were frequently made without reference to potential outcome measures or specific strategies that could be used for practical implementation in the community.
Conclusion:
There was broad representation of different aspects of specialization but limited consistency between health organization guidelines. Adopting a framework for recommendations as used in this review could assist organizations in structuring future recommendations that are specific, measurable, and framed in a manner that will promote action in the youth sport community.