Sport is a common way in which people undertake physical activity (PA) and it provides important physical, psychological and social health benefits at the individual and community level.1-10 Participating in sport through community-based sports clubs has better mental wellbeing and life satisfaction outcomes than participating in individual physical activities (e.g. using a gymnasium or walking).5 This is because clubs serve as social hubs.8-10

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted health and wellbeing at the population11, 12 and athlete-group13-16 level. In Australia, restrictions on sport varied from state to state and region to region (e.g. metropolitan vs. regional). They included physical distancing requirements, reduced access to facilities, and limited participation time. This amplified the negative health impacts, particularly by restricting physical activity and social engagement through community sport.17-20 While some people substituted their sport activity with non-sport-based PA, preliminary data indicates that 44% of Australians missed sport in their life and 57% were extremely/very keen to return to sport.17 Those who maintained some PA during lockdown periods reported greater optimism, connection and wellbeing than those who were less active, highlighting the link between returning to physical activity and enhanced population wellbeing.17

In their study on youth and families in Victoria, Elliott et al.20 found that reconnection to and reengaging with sport was important for improving the mental health decline brought on by the isolation felt during COVID-19 lockdowns. Sport could provide positive social, mental and health benefits1-10, 18 on its return from COVID-19, however there were also potential negative impacts, such as risk of injury, which could be exacerbated by a prolonged time away from activity21-23. In addition, there was also the risk of not returning to sport at all, for volunteers and participants due to the personal pressures caused by or worsened as a result of the pandemic, such as financial strain and sector-wide pressure as a consequence of the loss of paid sport support staff.19, 20 Sport has relied heavily on its human resource and financial security in returning and recovering from natural disasters,24 and as such, returning from COVID-19 is likely to be jeopardised by both the impact on volunteers and members.

At the time of collecting data for this study in June 2020, one in four Australian adult sport participants were extremely/very concerned about playing organised sport again, particularly about COVID-19 spreading via sport clubs (34%); people not following the health rules during sport (34%); clubs not being able to operate (29%); and the impact of the lockdown on their fitness and skills (25%).17 Our objective was to provide a deep understanding of the concerns of Australian adult sport participants when returning to community sport post a COVID-19 shutdown. These insights could enable the public health and sport sectors to: 1) better support a return to community sport participation when COVID-19 restrictions allow; 2) facilitate transitions in and out of subsequent lockdowns; and 3) address sector-wide issues and vulnerabilities during future pandemics. We explored the concerns of community sport club-based participants by asking them about the challenges they perceived and anticipate retuning to sport in the state of Victoria, Australia.

All forms of community-based club sport were suspended in Victoria, Australia in March 2020, and access to facilities and exercising outside of the home was restricted to groups of two people for one hour, once a day, within five km of a person's home.25 A return to sport was planned for June 2020 with a maximum of 20 people for outdoor group sport.25 We collected data in June 2020 when a restricted return to sport was imminent after the first COVID-19 wave.

Methods

We used standard concept mapping (CM) methods26 to enable community-based sports participants to articulate (brainstorm in response to a focus prompt), organise (sort based on perceived similarity of meaning) and rate (for impact on their return to sport and for player/athlete ability/capacity to overcome it) the anticipated challenges to returning to sport post the COVID-19 shutdown. Participants completed all activities using the Concept Systems groupwisdom™ online platform (https://groupwisdom.com/groupwisdom) and received a AU$50 gift card for their time. The La Trobe University human ethics committee approved the study (HEC20249).

Sample selection and recruitment

We aimed to recruit 30 to 50 people27 who participated in a range of sports at community-based sport clubs in Victoria. Recruitment was initiated with an email asking 22 Victorian State Sporting Associations to forward study recruitment information to contacts in community sports clubs. Interested club members completed an online expression of interest (EOI) identifying the sport they participated in, their gender, age, and years of participation at the club. Anyone who completed an EOI, was aged ≥16 years and actively participated in sport at a community-based sport club in Victoria was invited to participate in the CM project via email in June 2020.

Upon entering the groupwisdom™ platform, participants provided additional demographic information about the competitive season for their sport (winter/summer/year-round); type of sport they participated in (individual/small team sport (<10 participants per team)/large team sport (≥10 participants per team)); venue/facility used for their sport (indoor/outdoor/indoor and outdoor); and club location (metropolitan Melbourne/regional or rural Victoria).

Challenge generation and synthesis

The focus prompt for this study was “A challenge that I face as I return to participating in community sport post COVID-19 is …”. Participants could contribute multiple challenges, see the de-identified contributions of other participants, and revisit the online platform during the 10 days the brainstorming phase was open.

The research team synthesised and edited the brainstormed challenges into a clearly presented and manageable list of challenges that reflected all the relevant ideas contributed by participants.26 This iterative process aimed to retain the participants’ voice while ensuring responses were relevant to the focus prompt; splitting compound responses; identifying similar responses, selecting the most appropriate and deleting redundant responses; and editing responses for clarity.

Sorting and rating the challenges

Participants who completed the brainstorming were invited to sort and rate the synthesised challenges. Participants used the groupwisdomTM platform to express their view of the interrelationship between the challenges by grouping the randomised challenges in a way that made sense to them (i.e. participant-perceived similarity). They were asked to name each group they created informed by the contents of the group. Participants were also asked to rate each challenge for the impact it would have on their return to sport (impact: 1 = very low; 5 = very high) and how much individual players/athletes could do to overcome this challenge (ability/capacity: 1 = not much; 5 = a lot). They were encouraged to use the full rating scale and to rate each challenge relative to all the other challenges.

Data analysis

Participants’ sorting and rating data were verified before we used the groupwisdomTM platform to conduct a multistage statistical analysis.28 This analysis involved constructing a similarity matrix to use as input for nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS) to produce a two-dimensional ‘point map’. A stress value was generated via the MDS to assess goodness of fit between the map and the original sorting data.27 We then used hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) with Ward's algorithm to partition the point map into a cluster map with non-overlapping clusters. We identified the cluster solution that retained conceptual differences between clusters useful for interpretation and action, while merging clusters that seemed to belong together, in the context of this study.26 Having identified the most useful cluster representation of the data, we reviewed each challenge to determine if it was appropriate to re-draw any cluster boundaries. Finally, we named each cluster informed by the challenges within the cluster and the cluster names created by participants.

We calculated the mean impact and ability/capacity rating values for each challenge and used them to generate a bivariate go-zone graph26 divided into quadrants above and below the mean all-challenge impact (x-axis) and ability/capacity (y-axis) ratings. We also used this descriptive data to create pattern matches19 to visually display comparisons of mean cluster ratings across sub-groups of participants (competitive season, (3 variables); type of sport (3); venue/facility (3); and club location (2)). We compared sub-group mean impact ratings within clusters using Welch's t-test (using the number of items in the cluster as the sample n for cluster comparisons) when a pattern match slope appeared steep. The Welch's t-test assumes unequal variances and unequal sample sizes, to test the differences in cluster means between identified subgroups. We assumed interval measurement, with our primary interest in examining whether two groups differ on the specific cluster mean. Our calculation of cluster means comes from the item averages, thereby producing data at an interval-level. Given we conducted multiple (n=25) t-tests, we adjusted the alpha level to 0.01 to reduce the likelihood of encountering a Type-1 error.

Results Participant demographics, sport characteristics and CM engagement

Forty-five participants from 24 sports contributed concept mapping data: 49% male; 55% aged 16–34 years; 73% played sport at their club for >5 years; 67% participated in outdoor sport; 48% participated in large team-based sport; 42% participated in year-round competitions; and 83% of clubs were in metropolitan Melbourne. See Supplementary File 1 for full demographic details.

Forty-five participants brainstormed 142 challenges that the research team synthesised down to 69 unique challenges (Table 1) for sorting and rating. Thirty-four participants completed the sorting while 42 participants completed the rating on both scales (impact and ability/capacity).

Table 1. Challenges facing participants returning to community-based sport post COVID-19 shutdown (by cluster and in order of mean impact rating).

Cluster and statements

Bridging scorea

Mean ratingb

All statement

Impact

Ability/Capacity

go-zone

1.

Will we have enough participants?

0.71

3.32

2.89

3c

… loss of players (e.g. due to financial hardship, loss of interest)

0.89

3.93

2.88

2

43c

… having enough participants/athletes to compete

0.63

3.71

2.98

2

65c

… the viability of the sport at grass roots level in a new social climate

0.93

3.38

2.62

2

16

… motivating or encouraging high risk participants, concerned about COVID, to return (e.g. Veteran players)

0.59

3.31

2.90

2

10

… dealing with people who don't want to see sport changes (e.g. to rules, format etc.)

0.51

3.26

2.76

2

7

… learning to be IT savvy and get more proficient at using Apps such as Zoom to access coaching/training advice

0.75

2.31

3.19

3

2.

How do we stay safe?

0.23

3.31

3.35

30

… ensuring that I, my fellow team mates/athletes and others don't become complacent and continue to observe the protocols re. social distancing and cleaning equipment etc.

0.06

4.05

4.02

1

68c

… ensuring other club members feel safe

0.43

4.00

3.79

1

24

… following new, hard to understand and frequently changing government/peak body guidelines

0.43

3.86

2.98

2

58

… knowing how to implement health and safety protocols to keep me and others safe

0.00

3.76

3.90

1

9

… everyone in the team/competition having a different approach/view of health and safety while training/competing with restrictions

0.20

3.67

3.26

1

15

… knowing venues meet COVID guidelines for facility use (e.g. cleaning, access etc.)

0.07

3.60

3.21

1

2

… the possible risk of contracting illness

0.42

3.55

3.50

1

57

… knowing how to comply with social distancing while competing

0.20

3.29

3.57

1

22

… using public facilities in public spaces (e.g. change rooms, toilets etc.)

0.12

3.26

2.63

2

56

… knowing who decides if regulations are being followed during the game/competition

0.25

3.14

3.21

1

19c

… the concerns of families, partner, parents etc, about players/athletes being around other people

0.46

3.14

3.05

1

28

… data collection in the event of a positive COVID person/s

0.22

3.12

2.93

2

63

… knowing how we will participate if our suburb goes into lockdown

0.53

3.12

2.76

2

26

… uncertainty around how shared equipment will be managed/kept clean and safe

0.14

3.05

3.62

3

14

… keeping personal items apart (e.g. towels, drink bottles etc.)

0.10

2.45

3.88

3

13

… sharing of food

0.13

1.83

3.31

3

3.

How will our sport change?

0.34

3.17

2.85

51d

… not knowing if the season/training will be cancelled at short notice, if there is another wave of COVID cases

0.32

3.95

2.31

2

23d

… no events or competition are scheduled

0.35

3.83

2.26

2

18d

… having no obvious goal to work towards when the start of the season is uncertain

0.23

3.45

3.17

1

5d

… competitions may be impacted (if they happen at all) due to travel restrictions

0.42

3.26

2.48

2

48d

… uncertainty about whether or not we will be able to play competitively

0.24

3.31

2.66

2

36d

… uncertainty around season length and what I will be committing to

0.24

3.29

2.57

2

49d

… shifting the focus to participation (and being happy that we get to play at all) compared with competition/premierships etc, as it won't be a ‘normal’ season.

0.26

3.21

3.57

1

11d

… playing in compromised competitions in compromised conditions

0.38

3.21

2.64

2

47d

… knowing if the sport will be modified to offer participation (e.g. limit the number of participants/athletes, change rules etc.)

0.40

3.19

2.71

2

59d

… the training allowed is not enticing/motivating

0.24

3.07

2.74

4

32d

… being motivated to participate in a modified version of the sport or general exercise

0.14

2.93

3.33

3

6d

… loss of match fitness with the cancellation of the season and now I am unlikely to return next season

0.41

2.76

3.14

3

17d

… picking up team sport/competition skills again after training individually for so long

0.54

2.76

3.40

3

38d

… accessing a social competition instead of a traditional offering - many sports do not offer alternatives

0.35

2.69

2.95

4

8d

… justifying travel for training when it is restricted (e.g. quality, participant numbers, time limits etc.)

0.53

2.60

2.85

4

4.

How can we stay together?

0.80

3.15

3.01

12

… lack of volunteers who can help out consistently

0.79

3.79

3.24

1

60

… developing club cohesion given sessions with limited or segregated number of players

0.68

3.60

3.57

1

46

… whether we will be able to have social events to bring the club players/athletes together

0.92

3.40

2.74

2

37

… communication is vague leading to uncertainty

0.97

3.29

2.69

2

41

… rebuilding relationships at the club

0.82

3.19

3.76

1

52

… avoiding politics and working together in the interest of the sport and community health

0.67

3.05

3.31

3

50

… not knowing if I can socialise before/after the game/training/competition

0.83

3.00

2.98

4

33

… believing that the governing/peak body has the player/club best interests at heart rather than their financial situation

0.70

2.95

2.33

4

69

… convincing the committee to open the club to all members ASAP

0.85