You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Safeguarding policies and practices in International Federations: on the right track?
  1. Tine Vertommen1,2,
  2. Margo Mountjoy3,
  3. Bram Constandt2,
  4. Kirsty Burrows4,5
  1. 1 Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Mechelen, Belgium
  2. 2 Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
  3. 3 Family Medicine, McMaster University Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, Waterloo, Iowa, Canada
  4. 4 Medical and Scientific Department, International Olympic Committee, Lausanne, Switzerland
  5. 5 Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Tine Vertommen; Tine.Vertommen{at}thomasmore.be

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108861

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Interpersonal violence in sport—whether physical, sexual, psychological or neglect—remains a pressing public health concern, casting a shadow over the well-being of athletes at all levels. The impact of interpersonal violence, often referred to as ‘harassment and abuse’ in sport policy documents, extends far beyond the individual, touching families, healthcare systems and society.1 In recent years, safeguarding strategies have emerged as a vital strategy to protect athletes in the Olympic Movement, with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as a key actor. However, the landscape of safeguarding policies and practices within Summer and Winter Olympic International Federations (IFs) still reveals considerable variation, often lacking consistency and comprehensive implementation. Recognising these gaps, an internal quality control project driven by the IOC Safe Sport Unit set out to establish a framework for monitoring and evaluating the safeguarding efforts of IFs. By developing a set of indicators (see table 1), the project aimed to create a baseline framework for measuring safeguarding activities and to provide a tool for tracking changes over time. Through the application of this framework, it becomes possible to identify key challenges and areas in need of attention, resulting in the ability to support IFs in strengthening their safeguarding activities by pinpointing critical gaps.

    View this table:
    • In this window
    • In a new window
    Table 1

    Proposed set of safeguarding indicators for sport organisations

    Are IFs on the right track?

    All 39 Summer and Winter Olympic IFs participated, reflecting the importance placed on safeguarding by the sports community. As of 2022, 85% of these IFs reported having safeguarding policies, while only just over half had fully implemented them. Safeguarding officers, who are critical to the success of these policies, were predominantly women (54%), but a significant proportion (38%) did not officially hold the title of safeguarding officer or did not receive specialised training (49%), suggesting that many are working without the full recognition, support or training their role requires. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @TineVertommen, @margo.mountjoy, @Kirsty_Burrows1

    • Contributors TV and KB were responsible for project conception, coordination and survey design. TV performed the data analysis. TV drafted the manuscript. KB was involved in informing the project survey design, participant recruitment, interpreting the results and final approval of the manuscript for submission. MM and BC were involved in interpreting the results, drafting the manuscript, and reviewing and approving the final version for submission. TV is the guarantor. After conducting a manual content analysis of safeguarding officers’ needs reported in the online consultation, I have used ChatGPT to run a separate content analysis on the raw data. I used the results to compare and improve the wording of my initial description of results. ChatGPT did not find additional or different topics compared to my manual analysis.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests KB is head of Safe Sport Unit at the International Olympic Committee (IOC). TV is external consultant to the IOC Safe Sport Unit. MM is deputy editor of BJSM.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.