Mindful self-reflection as a strategy to support sustainable high-performance coaching: A mixed method study

Abstract

High-performance coaches (HPCs) encounter a wide range of demands and face challenges engaging in self-care and recovery activities to promote a sustainable coaching career. In this innovative mixed method study, we aimed to gain an understanding of HPCs’ experiences of a brief mindful self-reflection intervention. To address this aim, 18 HPCs completed an 8-week daily intervention and reported their ratings of mood and energy via daily SMS-diaries. Self-reported measures of self-compassion, mindfulness, and well-being were collected at pre-intervention, 2 weeks post-intervention, and 6 months post-intervention. Qualitative data consisted of focus group interviews that were conducted 2 weeks after the intervention ended and a written follow-up containing three questions 6 months after the intervention. To further explore the mechanisms throughout the intervention, participants were categorized into two groups, High Mood and Energy (HME) and Low Mood and Energy (LME), and we compared these groupings with qualitative data. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we subsequently developed two overarching themes from these data that characterized group differences, (viz. HME: “Self-aware and open to attend to self-care needs and well-being” and LME: “Reflecting resistance to the intervention and low self-awareness”). Taken together, we interpret these data to suggest this mindful self-reflection intervention has the potential to enhance HPCs’ self-compassion. This work provides knowledge that can help guide both coaches and organizations in their quest to promote sustainable coaching careers in the elite sport context and we offer recommendations for practitioners working with HPCs.

Lay Summary

In this mixed method study, we examined a mindful self-reflection intervention among HPCs with positive quantitative findings for self-reported self-compassion. Participants were also categorized based on daily ratings of energy and mood and from the qualitative data, we generated themes that provide an understanding of risk-factors and resources for sustainable HPCs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

• This study provides support that a brief, daily, mindful self-reflection intervention may aid sustainable high-performance coaching by increasing self-compassion.

• The promotion of self-reflection may increase awareness of vulnerability and lower the threshold for help-seeking among HPCs, and sport organizations might promote similar interventions with the aim of supporting sustainability among individual HPCs and psychologically healthier elite sport environments.

• The knowledge developed here on risk factors and resources associated with sustainable high-performance coaching could be used by those responsible for coach education, particularly for coaches transitioning into elite sport.

To support high-performance coaches (HPCs) in their pursuit of sustainable performance, mental health, and well-being, scholars and practitioners must consider the complex interplay of the individual and their environment. HPCs work in challenging workplace environments, often work long, irregular hours, travel extensively, and experience work-home interference (e.g., Bentzen et al., 2016), while many also encounter media demands, professional isolation, and job-insecurity (e.g., Wagstaff et al., 2016). In light of these demands, several recent reviews have synthesized the burgeoning coach-stress literature (see Olusoga et al., 2019; Potts et al., 2021; Simpson et al., 2021), while others have captured the growing scholarly attention devoted to mental health in sport (e.g., Poucher et al., 2021). Taken together, these associated lines of inquiry indicate that it is essential to better understand how to promote coach mental health and well-being to enable a sustainable HPC career (Kenttä et al., 2020).

Although a consensually agreed definition of mental health has not been forthcoming within the academic literature, in this study, we draw on the definition of the World Health Organization, who articulate this construct as, “a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community” (World Health Organization, 2004, p. 2). The WHO definition of mental health reflects the complex and interdependent relationship between the constructs of mental health and well-being. In addition, there is general agreement that well-being itself is a broad multi-dimensional construct and that there are myriad ways to measure well-being by attending to different predictors, indicators, or outcomes (VanderWeele et al., 2020; see, for a sport example, Breslin et al., 2017). Following this thread, the monitoring of mood state and energy on a daily basis have been used as promising and sensitive indicators of recovery (Pawsey et al., 2021) and holistic well-being (Parker et al., 2021; van Agteren et al., 2021).

It is noteworthy that research on coach well-being has been largely neglected (Stebbings & Taylor, 2017) in contrast to the substantial research attention dedicated to mental health and well-being of athletes in elite sport over the last decade (see, for reviews and position statements, Gouttebarge et al., 2019; Poucher et al., 2021; Vella et al., 2021). Nevertheless, in recent years the well-being of coaches at the elite level has begun to receive more scholarly attention (e.g., Baldock et al., 2022; Higham et al., 2023). Indeed, this growth in attention has been captured by a position statement with the sole focus of supporting the mental well-being of HPCs (Kenttä et al., 2023). This scholarly attention is important and goes some way to mirroring the extant bodies of research dedicated to stress and burnout in this population, and because elite sport is typically characterized as being dominated by male cultures and gender performativity (see Olusoga & Kenttä, 2017), which are likely to impact on HPC’s help-seeking behaviors. Scholars have also emphasized the need to better balance and align the mental health and well-being support offered to coaches and staff with that provided to athletes (Hill et al., 2021) and that this might promote sustainability (Carson et al., 2018). It follows that striving for a better understanding of mechanisms that contribute to well-being may support sustainability among HPCs.

Self-reflection has been consistently highlighted as mechanism for increasing coaches’ self-awareness including their own needs and coping strategies (Giges et al., 2004) and potential to contribute to a sustainable HPC career (Raedeke & Kenttä, 2013). The promotion of self-awareness has also gained attention through mindfulness practice to support well-being in domains outside sports (see, for a review, Creswell, 2017). The concept of mindfulness has been defined by Kabat-Zinn (1994) as, “the awareness that emerges through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (p. 4). Enhanced self-awareness and capability to “be” with the full range of emotions, including pain and sorrow, as well as being open to the experience of being vulnerable is promoted by paying attention to the “inner world” through practice of mindfulness. However, mindfulness interventions aimed at improving well-being and performance in sport, have also primarily been used with athlete samples (see, for a review, Noetel et al., 2019).

To our knowledge, Longshore and Sachs (2015) were the first to publish a mindfulness-based training program explicitly focused on coaches. In a mixed method study, the quantitative data demonstrated reduced anxiety, greater self-rated emotional stability and increased overall well-being. The qualitative interview data generated indications that the coaches trained in mindfulness increased their self-awareness, the ability to be present, a willingness to accept things as they are, and the ability to “respond” rather than “react” although there was no significant increase in the quantitative measures of mindfulness. Moreover, Lundqvist et al. (2018) reported the outcomes of greater psychological flexibility, less rumination, lower perceived stress, and better sleep quality post an 8-week mindfulness intervention targeting leaders prior to the Paralympics Games. To advance this work, Pawsey et al. (2021) explored how the level of daytime mindfulness among sport coaches influenced work-related rumination in the evening, sleep quality as well as energy and mood the following day in a 4-week diary study. The results showed that increases in daily mindfulness were associated with higher levels of the recovery-related measures of energy and mood and provided support for the value of interventions addressing daytime mindfulness.

Most recently, with the aim of promoting sustainable high-performance coaching, Hägglund et al. (2022) reported a multiphase process evaluation to develop a daily mindful self-reflection intervention over 8 weeks. The authors concluded that the intervention was user-friendly with high fidelity (98–100% response rate) that could promote self-awareness and make use of daily ratings of mood and energy. Promising findings of increased self-awareness leading to behavior changes with positive impact on well-being and meeting demands in life were reported by qualitative work. These behavior changes related to self-compassionate behavior and were still present at 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Recently, self-compassion has received increased scholarly attention as a potential facilitator for both well-being and performance in sports, albeit targeting athletes (see, for a review, Cormier et al., 2023). Self-compassion is conceptualized by Neff (2003) as having three elements: (1) self-kindness (i.e., extending kindness and understanding to oneself rather than hard harsh judgment and self-criticism); (2) common humanity (i.e., the ability to see one’s experiences as a part of a larger human experience rather than seeing them as separating and isolating; and (3) mindfulness (i.e., the holding of one’s thoughts in balanced awareness, simply noticing thoughts and emotions in the current situation without evaluation). In non-sport domains, self-compassion has generally been shown to be associated with indicators of well-being such as positive affect and life satisfaction (see, for a review, Ferrari et al., 2019). Among sport coaches, one longitudinal study reported self-compassion to be a stable construct over 6 months and negatively related to burnout (Ackeret et al., 2022). Yet, to our knowledge there are no studies that have carried out interventions that target and incorporate self-compassion to promote HPC well-being.

With the above in mind, the aim of this study was to advance applied knowledge of sustainable high-performance coaching. The population of HPCs has been under-researched in the prior literature and there remain several unexplored dimensions. More specifically, we aimed to gain an understanding of HPCs’ experiences of a brief mindful self-reflection intervention (see Hägglund et al., 2022), as well as explore the intervention’s potential associations with daily ratings of mood and energy and self-reported measures of well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion.

Method

Design and philosophical assumptions

A mixed methods research design was deliberately chosen with the aim of facilitating a targeted data collection and data analysis that more likely would enhance a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the research question. More specifically, a sequential quantitative → QUALITATIVE approach was chosen (Ivankova, 2014; Morse, 2003). In this design, the results of the quantitative data will influence the qualitative analysis, whereas the capital letters indicate that the qualitative data are deemed as the most dominate source of data (Miller, 2003, p. 435). The quantitative data were collected first and used for three purposes: (a) give an overall description of development over time in key variables (i.e., mood and energy); (b) purposeful selection of the coaches that were either high or low in key variables (Ivankova, 2014), and; (c) to inform the data analysis of the qualitative data (Braun et al., 2016; Braun & Clarke, 2019). Sequential mixed method designs have increasingly been used in psychological research across domains for expansion and refinement of theory (Waszak & Sines, 2003), and within sport psychology and coaching domains to enhance the understanding of complex research questions (e.g., Bentzen et al., 2017).

For this study, a pragmatic perspective was adopted, and we were guided by both context and practicality in developing the process of this sequential mixed method study design. In this manner, we approached the research as pragmatic inquirers engaging in ongoing reflection on inquiry decisions and results, assessing their practical worth and actionable value (Greene & Hall, 2010). Pragmatism favors an approach to research rooted in “what works” and is reflected in the use of various approaches to answer a given research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Yet, it is essential when adopting a pragmatic approach that authors are cognizant of their personal philosophical perspectives (cf. Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) and that epistemological and ontological issues are not marginalized in favor of clean, theory-free, but ultimately naïve methodological approaches under the rubric of pragmatism. Indeed, as a research team, we entered this project with different world views, each with lived experiences and personal research philosophies. These perspectives enabled us to be open to a variety of potential approaches to collect and explore data from a range of sources and in various forms. That data and the assumptions that guided our work then needed to be integrated into a coherent, singular positionality, which pragmatism lends itself to. Hence, our overarching aim was to undertake a pragmatic, action-focused inquiry of how HPCs experienced and responded to a previously-developed intervention, not to primarily provide an objective assessment of it. This aim was approached by seeking to understand diverse experiences, perceptions, and meaning, and we interpreted the quantitative data as a relevant source of data within a mixed methods study wherein qualitative data was the dominant source (i.e., quantitative-QUALITATIVE).

Participants

Eighteen Swedish HPCs (Female = 7, Male = 11; M^Age = 41, SD = 13, range = 25–65) participated in this study. Eleven of the HPCs work full-time as coaches, whereas the work percentages for the rest of the sample were: 2 = 75%; 3 = 50%; 1 = 40% and 1 = 25%. The years of total coach experience (at all competitive levels) varied between 4–41, M = 20, SD = 10. The participants were national team coaches from an individual Olympic Summer sport within the same sport federation. The access to HPCs was crucial and the choice was based on a homogenous and convenient sample. The years of experience of elite coaching varied between 0.5 and 40 years, M = 12, SD = 11, (elite coaching defined by the federation as working with junior or senior athletes on national team level).

Procedure and intervention

A brief mindful self-reflection intervention was implemented consisting of a daily SMS-diary following the 8-week protocol of Hägglund et al. (2022). Accordingly, the SMS was sent at 9 p.m. each evening with the following content:

Good evening! How was your day?

1. How have you experienced your mood today? (rate on a scale 1–10)

2. How have you experienced your energy level today? (rate on a scale 1–10)

   • If you wish, please include a short reflection on the day. [this was optional]

3. Briefly describe your highlight of today.

Warm regards, (name of the coordinator)

On receipt of the participant response (i.e., receipt of their SMS-diary), the coordinator (in this study, this was the First Author) sent participants a consistent acknowledgement message stating “thank you so much for your reply” followed by a positive emoji which was changed each day. Moreover, the coordinator sent out a weekly summary to participants containing an individual graph of mood and energy of the previous week, a summary of highlights under the heading: “The things you valued in your life this week” as well as an individual question based on their experience of the week to stimulate further reflection among the HPCs; for example, “You have a great ability to separate your mood and energy levels, how do you think that helps you in everyday life?” or “What strategies and tools do you have for recovery during intense days?”

On the first day of the intervention the first and second author met with the participants and held a 90-minute theoretical introduction to self-reflection, self-awareness, and sustainability for coaches in elite sport context, ending the session with questions and answers. During this session, the coordinator also introduced the brief mindful self-reflection intervention, explained the process of the upcoming 8 weeks and the participants had the opportunity to ask questions regarding the intervention. The research design followed the principles of the Helsinki declaration of ethical principles and during this meeting the participants received ethical information and provided written consent to participate in the study. The 8-week brief mindful self-reflection intervention took place during the competition season including daily training as well as traveling to competitions for the HPCs. The SMS-intervention was planned to run over 8 consecutive weeks, however for two of the participants the intervention was disrupted for personal reasons. After several days of no answers the coordinator asked via SMS if the HPCs wished to continue, with the participants responding that they did, hence for one HPC there was 1-week break after 3 weeks and for one HPC there was a 2-week break after 4 weeks. They both completed the SMS-diary over 8 weeks in total. See Table 1 for an overview of the intervention and data collection processes.

Table 1. Intervention- and data collection process.

Activity	Introduction seminar	Daily SMS-diary	Focus group interview	No data-collection	Written Follow-up
Month	1 (February; T1)	1-2 (February–March)	3 (April; T2)	4–8 (May–Sep)	9 (October; T3)

The sequential mixed methods data collection was conducted as following: The quantitative data consisted of daily ratings of mood and energy via SMS-diaries during the intervention, as well as three different self-reported standardized questionnaires used to examine intervention effects. Baseline measures were collected the day the intervention started (T1), and post-intervention measures were collected respectively 2 weeks (T2) and 6 months (T3) after the intervention ended. Qualitative data consisted of focus group interviews that were conducted 2 weeks after the intervention ended and a written follow-up containing three questions 6 months after the intervention (see Hägglund et al., 2022). The 6-month follow-up was based on the transtheoretical model which hypothesizes that behavior change can be considered to be sustained after 6 months (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983).

Quantitative data

Daily ratings of mood and energy

From the daily SMS-diary, over the 8-week intervention period, daily ratings of mood and energy were collected by asking the participants to rate respectively their mood and energy on a scale from 1 to 10 (see Hägglund et al., 2022).

Self-compassion

The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF, Raes et al., 2011) is a 12-item measure assessing the three main components of self-compassion in both positive and negative aspects: self-kindness (e.g., “I try to be understanding and patient toward aspects of my personality I don’t like”) vs self-judgment (reverse coded; e.g., I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies”), awareness of common humanity (e.g., “I try to see my failings as part of the human condition”) vs isolation (reverse-coded e.g., “When I fail at something that is important to me, I tend to feel alone in my failure”); and mindfulness (e.g., “When something painful happens I try to take a balanced view of the situation”) vs over-identification (reverse-coded; e.g., “When I’m feeling down I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that is wrong”). Each of the items is rated on a scale 1–5 (1 = Almost Never to 5 = Almost Always). A validated version of the scale within the linguistic context showing acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha with two samples; 0.68; 0.76) was used in the present study (Bratt & Fagerström, 2020).

Mindfulness

The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) was used to assess core characteristics of mindfulness, namely, a receptive state of mind in which attention, informed by a sensitive awareness of what is occurring in the present, simply observes what is taking place (e.g., “I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until sometime later” or “I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I’m doing right now to get there”). Each of the 15 items is rated on a 6-point scale (1 = Almost Always to 6 = Almost Never). A validated version of the scale within the linguistic context was used in this study, tested with three samples which all showed good internal consistency; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77; 0.85; and 0.86 (Hansen et al., 2009).

Well-being

The World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5; Topp et al., 2015) 5-item scale was used to assess well-being, e.g., “I’ve felt active and vigorous.” Each of the statements is rated in relation to the past 2 weeks on a scale 0–5 (0 = At no time to 5 = All of the time). The WHO-5 is considered to be a generic well-being scale useful across study fields to assess and compare well-being over time (see, for a review, Topp et al., 2015). One modification of the scale was conducted concerning item five: “My daily life has been filled with things that interest me.” The item was changed into two items tapping into respectively work-life and private life as an attempt to better prompt participants to separate these two contexts when reflecting on their well-being, which is an important consideration based on the literature of the HPC context (e.g., Bentzen et al., 2016). These two items were calculated into a mean, before making an average score with the rest of the items in the scale. A validated version of the scale within the linguistic context was used in this study, analyzed with three samples showing Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82; 0.83; and 0.88 (Löve et al., 2014).

Qualitative data

Focus group interviews

Focus group interviews were employed to understand how the HPCs perceived their experience of engaging in this brief mindful self-reflection intervention. The HPCs were divided in three groups for the focus group interviews (six, five, and five in respective groups), and were conducted by the first and second author. Three topics were included: (1) the HPCs’ experience of taking part in this intervention; (2) the experience of reflecting over highlights every day, and; (3) any potential change in the relationship to recovery among participants. The first focus group interview lasted 64 minutes, the second 61 minutes, and the third 51 minutes. After the focus group interview, the HPCs were asked to write down their own personal definition of vulnerability in an SMS and send to the coordinator.

Written 6-months follow-up

To understand the long-term impact and deepen the knowledge of the experience of engaging in this brief mindful self-reflection intervention, the HPCs were asked to fill out an open-ended questionnaire during a scheduled meeting 6 months after the intervention ended (cf. Kwasnicka et al., 2016; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). Participants were presented with three questions: (1) “is there anything that was of special value in this intervention that you want to put forward?”; (2) “have there been any effects on yourself or what you do as a consequence of participating in the SMS-diary?” and; (3) “did the SMS-diary affect your self-awareness? If yes, briefly describe how.”

Data analyses

Quantitative analyses

All data analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 28.0). Data were first screened to assess “missingness” and normality of distribution. Regarding missing data for the standardized questionnaires, two respondents did not respond on T3, and two respondents had one single item missingness each (<5%). For the two single items missing, mean for the missing items were imputed for the average score on the related items for the same subscale (Mean Across Available Items). This procedure for handling item-level missing data is recommended in favor of Listwise Deletion to avoid losing statistical power, especially when missing data occur at random and there exists a low percentage of “missingness” (Newman, 2014). For the daily ratings of mood and energy, the response rate was 99%. These missing data were not imputed, however, when calculating mean score for the subscales of mood and energy, the mean was calculated based on the number of responses each participant had in total over the 56 days (8 weeks x 7 days = 56 measure points). The standardized questionnaires were assessed to be normally distributed through analyses of skewness: (1.80 to 2.18) and kurtosis (1.65 to 6.36) (Kline, 2011). To test for difference over the three time-points for the variables (SCS-SF; MAAS: WHO-5), analyses were conducted using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Specifically, the ANOVA was selected to determine whether there was a variance over the three questionnaire data time points, while the post-hoc test was used to test the multiple pairwise comparisons across these timepoints (Little, 2013).

Analyses of daily ratings of mood and energy were first inspected by visual and descriptive measures following guidelines of intensive longitudinal repeated methods (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013), and subsequently, total scores for mood and energy were created based on the mean level for each individual of each variable for the 56 days of measurements. Based on the descriptive statistics of participants’ mood and energy scores, the participants scoring respectively the highest and the lowest within this population were purposefully selected intending maximum variation (Palinkas et al., 2015) and labeled “Higher Mood and Energy” (HME) and “Lower Mood and Energy” (LME). This categorization was undertaken to ensure “information-rich cases” that could subsequently be explored in relation to the demographic and qualitative data (Patton, 2002). Based on the total number of participants in this study, we wanted to select approximately one third of the sample (approximately six participants in total) for this exploration, of which half of these would be labeled HME and half would be labeled LME representing those “higher” and “lower” in the variables energy and mood within this HPC-sample (i.e., the participants were not divided into these groups based on pre-decided levels of low respectively high mood and energy). Further explanation how these were selected based on their scores and the differences in mood and energy between the HME group and LME group are presented in the quantitative results section.

Qualitative analysis

The focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim and together with the written data from the 6-month follow-up made up the qualitative data that we analyzed. The data from LME group and HME group was analyzed using the six-phase process of reflexive thematic analysis (RTA; Braun et al., 2016; Braun & Clarke, 2019). It should be noted that Austin (pseudonym HME-coach) did not participate in the focus group interviews and Kyle (pseudonym for LME-coach) did not participate in the 6-month written follow-up. RTA was deemed as a suitable choice providing robust processes for identifying and interpreting patterns within data sets as well as being a fitting tool to explore associating factors and processes as we aimed for in this study (Braun et al., 2016). The first author led the analytic process of data which began by familiarization already when transcribing followed by engaging in the data sets by reading transcripts as well as re-listening to the audio recordings while taking notes on all interesting aspects in the data. Next, raw data were coded in a thorough and flexible process identifying and labeling all interesting parts of the data with potential bearing on the research question. The coded data were then clustered into initial themes to then be reviewed and revised when going back to the whole data set in a process of checking the interpretation of the data until a set of overarching themes and sub-themes were generated that answered the research question in a robust and refined manner.

In RTA, quality stems from the thorough and active engagement with the data as well as extensive reflexive practice of the researcher rather than measures of inter-coder reliability (Braun & Clarke, 2019). To enhance this reflection process, the first author had regular meetings with the second and third author during the data analyses phases, to illuminate personal assumptions, as well as how the experience of being the coordinator (i.e., being in daily contact with the participants for 8 weeks) and co-conducting the focus group interviews may influence the first author; both the engagement in the data as well as the interpretation of the data. The second author has significant experience in applied work with athletes and HPCs, and both the second and the third author have substantial experience of research with HPCs and athletes, hence could provide valuable and significant reflections of the interpretations. Through ongoing discussions, the final theme names to capture the essence and substance of each theme were developed in collaboration. The RTA included both deductive and inductive elements, which is common in RTA (Braun et al., 2016); deductive by actively seeking factors and processes related to the HPCs’ higher respectively lower ratings of mood and energy and, inductively (data-driven) by the codes and themes being generated from the raw data. Given that the participants in this study were not from an English-speaking country, the quotations have been translated into English. To ensure the quality of translation to minimize feasible loss of meaning, consultations with a native English-speaking proofreader were part of the translation process (van Nes et al., 2010).

Results

The results from the standardized measures are presented first followed by the quantitative descriptive data of mood and energy for the entire sample, in addition to the descriptive data of the purposefully selected groups. Following the study design of quan-QUAL, the last part is devoted to the qualitative results of the LME and HME groups.

Quantitative data

Results of ANOVA

The descriptive statistics for the variables WHO-5; MAAS; SCS-SF of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA are presented in Table 2. The measures indicated no statistical difference over time for the variable WHO-5. For the MAAS, the results showed an overall statistical increase over time, however the Bonferroni post-hoc test for difference between the timepoints only indicated a borderline significance (p = .052) between T1 and T2. Moreover, the results showed an overall significant increase over time for SCS-SF, where the Bonferroni post-hoc test clearly indicated a significant change between T1 and T2.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and result from ANOVA.

		T1	T2	T3	Variance		P	Eta.Sq
Variable	N	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	F	df
WHO-5	16	17.06 (2.41)	16.81 (2.87)	16.79 (3.47)	.72	2	.931	.01
MAAS	16	4.23 (.69)	4.59 (.51)	4.45 (.61)	3.94	2	.044	.36
SCS-SF	16	3.21 (.69) ^a	3.53 (.52) ^a	3.48 (.69)	5.32	2	.019	.43

Note; Bonferroni post-hoc test for difference between two time points was performed: ^ap ≤ .05 between T1 vs. T2.

Mood and energy: Descriptive data and categorization of high/low groups

The mean scores for the daily measurements of mood and energy for the 56 days, for the total sample (N = 18), the groups of LME (n = 4) and HME (n = 3) are displayed in Table 3. Based on these mean values of the total scores, we aimed to purposefully select the three participants scoring the highest respectively the lowest on these two variables within this sample. Nevertheless, in regard to those scoring the lowest, it was not possible to distinguish between two of the HPCs (pseudonym Sidney and Drew), hence, the group of LME consisted of four coaches. The seven HPCs purposefully selected consisted of four women and three men, and both genders were represented in both groups. The age span was 21–65 years, M^Age 37, see Table 4 for descriptive data and information on the categorization of high/low groups.

Table 3. Mean scores for daily measures of Mood and Energy 56 days.

		Mood		Energy
Sample	N	M (SD)	Mood Range	M (SD)	Energy Range
Total	18	7.57 (.88)	6.25–9.18	7.09 (.88)	5.57–8.75
LME	4	6.39 (.16)	6.25–6.61	5.91 (.27)	5.57–6.34
HME	3	8.85 (.41)	8.39–9.18	8.44 (.27)	8.29–8.75

Table 4. Mood and energy; Descriptive data and categorization of high/low groups.

Pseudonym	Group	Yrs of coaching Exp	Yrs of Elite Coaching Exp	Mood M	Energy M
Kyle	LME	10	3	6.29	5.88
Taylor	LME	14	2	6.61	5.84
Sidney	LME	15	3	6.25	6.34
Drew	LME	4	0.5	6.43	5.57
Jessie	HME	39	35	8.96	8.29
Logan	HME	18	10	8.39	8.29
Austin	HME	18	8	9.18	8.57

Note; exp = Experience; LME = Low Mood and Energy: HME = High Mood and Energy.

Qualitative results

The findings of the qualitative analyses are reported under two overarching themes, “LME group: Reflecting resistance to the intervention and low self-awareness” and “HME group: Self-aware and open to attend to self-care needs and well-being.” Under each overarching theme two sub-themes are presented reflecting associated factors and processes of lower respectively higher ratings of mood and energy in each of the groups. Quotations are referenced by participants’ pseudonyms.

LME group: Reflecting resistance to the intervention and low self-awareness

This overarching theme captures resistance in the LME group to this daily mindful self-reflection intervention and shows how they were inexperienced and novice in reflecting on their lives, and how that corresponds to their inner-lives, hence low self-awareness.

What will the coordinator think of me? Fear of showing vulnerability

Resistance was reflected through different barriers and processes that appeared to influence their lower ratings of mood and energy. Sidney stated, “it can be hard to be totally honest to yourself,” illuminating one barrier to increased self-awareness as well as a lack of being in touch with what is sustainable in one’s life or not. For the LME group, the relationship with the coordinator elucidated their insecurity to disclose vulnerability or any negative sides due to fear of how, for example not feeling good one day, would be received and possibly judged by others. Taylor stated:

There might be an evaluation from you that I might find difficult if I show my, eh, negative sides, or if I show that I’m not feeling well one day. So maybe I haven’t been completely honest there… could I be judged on how I’m answering?

Moreover, this process showed how this fear and insecurity led to disregarding feelings of frustration, due to intrapersonal perspectives such as “to follow through is to be a winner” (i.e., opposed to being a “quitter”). These patterns among the LME group may influence help-seeking negatively, such as in this case, not daring to ask questions during the intervention period about the purpose of different parts of the intervention. Kyle described the process:

We’ve met you once before [at the start-up meeting], and then we got comments [weekly reflection from the coordinator], then all of a sudden it gets quite personal because you’ve answered [personally]. So, then I held back and wrote shorter and shorter… I carried a frustration during these 8 weeks, “like what is this?” But then I’m really competition-oriented, so it’s not like I’m thinking about quitting, either.

Frequently the LME group reported being unaccustomed and also uncomfortable revealing vulnerability or tell of anything that may be regarded as negative, perceptions that appear to contribute to their lower ratings of mood and energy. When asked further about why they kept engaging in this brief mindful intervention despite frustration, Drew described over-coming these barriers by finding the internal value for one-self instead of placing value on what the coordinator may think:

I agree that it was really hard in the beginning, just because we had recently met you, and thought “yes, okay, what does X (the coordinator) think of this; should I twist this [my answer]? No, I shouldn’t.” But after a few weeks it got easier. I thought the value of this was my own reflections, that I force myself every night to think, “well okay—what actually happened today? What did I think of this, really?”

Becoming aware of daily things. Lack of previous self-reflection

The SMS-diary intervention had created reflection in their lives in a way they were not previously accustomed with, here illuminated by Sidney, “This was something I wasn’t used to, to become more aware of my day.” Echoing this statement, Drew stated:

I always want to be somewhere else than where I am now. What’s happened now is that I’ve become more aware that this is actually how I think. I’ve like, gotten to know myself in a different way. That is something very valuable.

This lack of previous self-reflection, and in turn, self-awareness, may have been a reason for the participants’ lower ratings of mood and energy. Importantly, although increased self-awareness may not always lead to positive revelations it might be valuable for supporting individuals to develop insight to what creates energy in their life. Kyle stated:

I was surprised myself over how little my daily highlights had to do with sports… I thought that X [name of sport] was my life, given how dedicated I am to being a coach, but they’ve [my highlights] really been my family, my own work-out, that I’ve been able to take care of myself […] But that also became a tough reflection, because how do my days look? It became like “oops, what gives me energy?”

The LME group also reported low recognition of the influence of mood and energy levels prior to the intervention, but reported to have developed a more proactive approach for looking after themselves after the intervention, as in this example from Sidney:

The value for me was gaining more insight, that I could look and see when I felt low and how that affected me, and when I felt good and how that affected me, also. I can say that the experience gave me more perspectives on my own personality. And those thoughts can now help me take responsibility for different parts of my personality.

Furthermore, the lower ratings of mood and energy among the LME group appear to have been influenced by a lack of acknowledgment of recovery in relation to their HPC-role and the elite sport context. Kyle noted, “In our work it’s so much about thinking about others, that I want to be the best I possibly can for someone else. And that made me realize that my personal recovery works best when I focus on myself.” Daily reflections increased self-awareness and were associated with developing self-care strategies, Taylor stated in the focus group interview, “I usually just grind all day, like, from the moment I get there [to work] until I finish. That’s a lot of hours….” Furthermore, the 6-month written follow-up, Taylor illuminated the potential influence of a lack of awareness of self-care strategies may have in for lower ratings of mood and energy during the intervention:

To be forced to stop and reflect on what is good, that also makes it clear what puts me in a good mood. It helps me to do more of those things = feeling better. I do more of what makes me feel good.

HME group: Self-aware and open to attend to self-care needs and well-being

This overarching theme captures previous experience of, and a positive view of self-reflection by the HME group as well as already having self-care strategies developed in the context of elite sport generally being the foundation for their higher ratings of mood and energy.

I thought it felt really good: Feeling seen and engaging in learning

Taking part in this brief mindful self-reflection intervention constituted a positive experience of self-reflection for the HME group, Jessie stated, “You get a bit of separation anxiety when I stopped hearing from you [the coordinator stopped texting]. It provided an opportunity to reflect. It was fun.” On the same note, Logan said, “I thought it felt great, I’ve tried before [to do self-reflection] but not in this concrete way.” Frequently, the HME group seemed to have a positive outlook on the intervention, and both Logan and Jessie emphasized how the experience of noticing everyday highlights impacted their higher mood and energy ratings and Logan stated, “I haven’t thought of highlights before, and that was really useful. Especially when there are a lot of ordinary days—which there are during an 8-week period—that tend to look the same.” Yet, while offering opportunities for reflection each day, the process of identifying a highlight every day was occasionally challenging for the participants, as stated by Jessie, “Some days I was just like ‘Highlight? What highlight? Did anything good happen today?’ And then I really had to think. I even wrote a few times: ‘No highlight today’.” Jessie’s narrative illustrates an ease of showing authenticity in relation to the coordinator during the intervention; a sense of security of self that may present a reason for higher ratings of mood and energy in the HME group. Moreover, this group generally expressed interest in learning from the weekly reflections from the coordinator, which were perceived as adding value to the self-reflection process, Jessie stated the following, “Oh, someone saw me! I got personal feedback. Oh, what questions [reflection from the coordinator] do we get this week?” The comments from the HME group were taken to indicate that their reported learning contributed to their higher ratings of mood and energy along with the daily process of noticing highlights. Furthermore, the daily process may have facilitated gratitude for the smaller things in life as well as adding to their self-care strategies, as Logan noted, “I’m more aware that daily highlights can be either big things or small things, but that it’s important to highlight something good every day.”

To have a philosophy of self-care

Both Logan and Jessie elucidated how they have developed self-awareness over the years when working as a coach in elite sports, Jessie stated, “Oh my god, I was so stressed when I was young. It was really nerve-racking. Because then I felt, ‘It’s my fault if it doesn’t go well’ [for the athletes].” Their reported experience and contextual knowledge in combination with reflecting on sustainable well-being were deemed to have impacted their higher ratings of mood and energy in this SMS-diary intervention. Logan stated:

I’ve had this idea for quite a long time, that my battery should, as much as possible, be as charged in the evening as it is in the morning by the things that give me energy during the day. I work hard at this because I think it is important. I have a full-time job as well as being a coach, and then I also have a family, so you have to balance all of that, a good balance for recovery.

Also, in relation to work-life balance, Jessie reported having clear routines for creating boundaries for her working hours, “I’ve decided that every week, I put an X in my calendar, often it’s after 12 o’clock on Wednesdays, where I won’t do any more work after 12.” Furthermore, the idea of being “in the now,” which mindfulness practice promotes (Kabat-Zinn, 1994), was already present in Logan’s life before participating in this intervention:

I have this basic philosophy: to be present where you are, here and now. I think I’m quite good at it. When I’m at my other job, then I’m there and don’t think about X [name of sport]. Then I go to the sport venue and I’m a coach, then I’m just there. It’s like I’m in a new room but when I walk out and drive home, well then, I’m there, at home. I also plug into the energy that I need just in that room.

Discussion

Our aim in this mixed-method study was to gain an understanding of HPCs’ experiences of an innovative and rigorous mindful self-reflection intervention. Further to this, we wanted to explore the daily ratings of mood and energy among HPCs, and the intervention’s potential associations with self-reported measures of well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion. The quantitative results in this study indicate that the brief mindful self-reflection intervention impacted participants’ self-reported self-compassion over time in a positive direction. Moreover, the study design of quan-QUAL with the purposeful selection of participants’ high and low in mood and energy provided a more in-depth comprehension of risk factors and resources associated with sustainable high-performance coaching. Altogether, the data reported are insightful and significantly extend our understanding of participant experiences and the study variables.

The present results offer further support for the utility of the previously developed 8-week brief mindful self-reflection intervention (Hägglund et al., 2022), particularly regarding the 99% response rate in the current study and the 98–100% reported by Hägglund et al. across multiple populations of HPCs. Nevertheless, it is important to note the different study designs between the present study and Hägglund et al.’s. That is, Hägglund et al. showed promising results regarding behavior change aligned with well-being and self-compassion through qualitative work. In the current study, a mixed-method design was used to attempt to extend the work of Hägglund et al. with the quantitative measures used here indicating no increase in well-being measured by the WHO-5, only enhanced self-compassion. Nevertheless, in the subgroup of LME the participants described becoming more aware of recovery needs and the development of self-care strategies, which was also noted at the 6-month follow-up. As previously noted, while the daily ratings of mood and energy over 56 consecutive days were used as indicators of well-being in this study, it is important to note that mood and energy alone do not capture the broad multidimensional concept of well-being. This caveat aside, this work goes some way to addressing calls for research examining coach well-being and self-care using mindfulness-based interventions (see Kenttä et al., 2020).

The quantitative findings for self-compassion in the current study are aligned with the qualitative findings of Hägglund et al. (2022). We interpret these data to indicate that this brief mindful self-reflection intervention taps into fundamental elements of self-compassion, potentially associated with the element of self-kindness. Self-awareness is a central component to develop self-compassion (Neff, 2003) and regardless of their categorization to the HME or LME group, participants qualitatively described “increased self-reflection” and “gaining self-awareness” following the intervention. The HPCs expressed reflecting and becoming aware of what contributes to high mood and energy and the importance of noticing highlights in everyday life for their well-being. Subsequently, the HPCs in both HME and LME groups perceived themselves to have improved self-care strategies regardless of their pre-intervention stance on or engagement in self-care activities. Interestingly, adopting a kind and caring approach to oneself, stands in contrast to the “no-pain-no-gain” characterization of hypermasculine cultures that dominate elite sport. Nevertheless, we do encourage some caution when interpreting the trend of increased self-compassion given that this study is the first to offer an in-depth evaluation of this construct among HPCs.

Several key observations should be noted regarding the qualitative data. As alluded to above, both groups noticed engaging in self-reflection. Yet, the LME and the HME groups reported two diverging accounts of engaging in this brief mindful self-reflection intervention, demonstrating important factors and processes influencing their lower respectively higher ratings of mood and energy. For the LME group, lower ratings of mood and energy can be explained by having limited experience of self-reflection and the intervention period showed to be a process of gaining self-awareness and developing self-care strategies. On the contrary, the HME group reported having good self-awareness as well as using self-care strategies before engaging in the SMS-diary, which may be the overriding reason why they rated higher in mood and energy during the SMS-diary as compared to their counterparts.

Moreover, for the HME group, we perceived the contact with the coordinator and weekly reflections were to add value to the learning process. This observation was contrary to the LME group who frequently demonstrated ambivalence and some resistance regarding the relationship with the coordinator stemming from fear of being judged if showing any negative sides or expressing vulnerability. The response of the HME-group is in line with previous research, where seeking out learning opportunities and reflection promoted flourishing among coaches (Pankow et al., 2022). Conversely, resistance and fear of being judged and showing vulnerability is commonly addressed in the culture of high-performance sport (Olusoga & Kenttä, 2017). Importantly, this resistance was present despite the researchers regularly reiterating issues of confidentiality and attempts to reduce any sense that disclosing any sign of vulnerability to others is a risk. These perceptions may have affected help-seeking behavior negatively as well as lower ratings of mood and energy. This interpersonal dynamic is explicitly shown in the example of one who carried a frustration throughout the intervention due to not understanding nor embracing the described purpose of the intervention, but neither reaching out to the researchers to ask or discontinuing, referring to “I’m not a quitter” mindset. More specifically, this reflects the culture of elite sport where for example, “to follow through is to be a winner” is considered as the norm together with the display of masculinity among coaches (i.e., Corsby et al., 2022). In this study, the impact of such culture was more prominent among the LME group and this is typically discussed within research methods as social desirability (Perinelli & Gremigini, 2016).

Additionally, some qualitative findings stood out in relation to demographics. The LME group consisted of younger HPCs than in the HME group, but most noteworthy is the much more limited experience of elite coaching in the LME group (LME mean: 2 years; HME mean: 18 years). Recently, Hill et al. (2021) reported that having little experience and being new to working within elite sport may make coaches vulnerable and effect mental health and well-being. Consequently, this brief mindful self-reflection intervention might be valuable specifically to those coaches transitioning into the highest and most demanding level of coaching as well as these findings highlight the need to support novice HPCs in various ways. One support mechanism may be through mentoring and role-modelling on whereby experienced HPCs might illuminate for novice HPCs the value of self-reflection for promoting sustainability across one’s HPC career (Donoso-Morales et al., (2017).

Strengths, limitations, and future research

A strength of this study was the real-world data over 56 consecutive days with high fidelity (99% response rate) from the population of seven female and 11 male high-performance coaches during their training- and competition season. Furthermore, the deliberate use of mixed methods strengthened the study as the overall effects on the group as well as the sampling based on the descriptive differences in mood and energy provided an opportunity to gain deeper knowledge on factors limiting and contributing to sustainability.

Regardless of the strengths of this research, there are limitations that must be considered. First, the small sample in the quantitative data analyses suggest caution when interpreting the results. Second, while individual interviews with the sampled LME and HME may have provided additional insight of underlying factors of their daily ratings, focus group interviews were adequate for the research aims. This was due to two reasons; (1) in previous use of the intervention protocol tested in this study, the focus group interviews have been shown to be a vital part of the intervention (Hägglund et al., 2022) and; (2) it was not feasible to access more time with the participants due to their time constraints. Third, a further potential limitation was that the 6-month follow up was collected in a written format, therefore as researchers, we had no opportunity to probe participant responses to gain deeper insight of retention effects. Yet, HPCs are a population rarely targeted nor accessible for longitudinal research making these findings an important contribution to the existing literature. Lastly, we would like to illuminate that, although in line with the pragmatic approach to this work, we used a categorization for lower and higher relative to the sample. There are potential limitations associated with this related to the lack of statistical standardization for future studies. As such, despite this pragmatism, we do encourage researchers to explore the potential existence of statistically based categorizations for ratings of mood and energy across coach samples and examine how these compare with other populations.

It is worth noting that regardless of the pragmatic approach adopted for this study, and our desire for coherence across the aims, positionality, methods, results, and inference, we do acknowledge elements of complexity associated with adopting a mixed methods research design. That is, while researchers have argued that mixed methods can integrate multiple concerns and practice paradigms to get the best of both worlds, it is essential that researchers using these approaches must engage in critical discussion of epistemological and ontological matters to avoid the risk of reproducing a celebratory discourse on mixing methods (Sparkes, 2015, Smith et al., 2012). Furthermore, in considering this complexity, it might help to acknowledge the work of Smith et al. (2012), who drew on the work of Eisner (1991) to call for the qualities of connoisseurship in research. To elaborate, for Eisner, connoisseurship involves making granular distinctions between complex and subtle qualities, whereby researchers must make judgements about the value of different forms of data. The potential value of attempting to hold a perspective of connoisseurship is to offer work that is subtle, complex, and informed. We hope to have achieved this goal and also recognize the complexities of epistemological and ontological coherence while using mixed methods.

Future research would benefit from long-term cohort studies on how self-compassion may impact HPCs with follow-ups over a longer period than 6 months to examine the effects on well-being and sustainability as well as the contextual factors that influence HPCs. It may be of interest to intentionally draw upon the findings of the years of experience and further explore adequate knowledge that is associated to sustained well-being and self-care among those who remained in the profession. Qualitative designs building on narrative data would help to further assess the cultural features that act as risk factors and resources to sustainable high-performance coaching. The stereotypical elite sport context may influence HPCs regardless of gender as well as various levels of perceived psychological safety may alter the threshold to seek help and express vulnerability, which is of importance to gain scholarly attention for further applied work.

Applied implications

This mixed-method study not only provides further support for a brief mindful self-reflection intervention for HPCs (cf. Hägglund et al., 2022) but also original knowledge that may help shape strategies on multiple levels to support sustainability for HPCs. First, given the lack of intervention research targeting sustainability and self-care strategies within the HPC population, this study offers an intervention that could be useful for enhancing self-compassion. The exceptionally high fidelity regardless of participants rating their mood and energy to be high or low also signals that this intervention is accessible for HPCs with limited time and substantial role-related demands. The qualitative data based on the HME and LME groups may also provide opportunities for a more comprehensive understanding of behaviors that are interdependent within the context and the culture of high-performance sport, thereby facilitating a more sustainable approach to the profession among coaches. Second, in addition to supporting the individual, it may be equally important for sport organizations to take notice of the data presented here relating to help-seeking behaviors and views on vulnerability. That is, sport organizations might act by implementing similar interventions with the aim of developing environments where mindful self-reflection, self-care, and ultimately well-being and sustainability, are promoted and prioritized. Such system-wide work has the potential to lower the threshold for help-seeking and enhance on-the-job learning, which have been shown to be highly valued by coaches (Mallett et al., 2016). This study goes some way to responding to recent calls for intervention research targeting coaches’ well-being and self-care (see Cropley et al., 2020; Potts et al., 2021; Simpson et al., 2021) and adding the insight of support being based on levels of experience and competency to target different stages of a coach’s career which echoes literature of high-performance coaches’ development (Donoso-Morales et al., 2017). Finally, the present data lead us to reflect on how those responsible for coach education and coach development can integrate mental health literacy and knowledge about adequate recovery to support sustainability among HPCs with specific attention to those about to transit into the highest domain of coaching.

Conclusion

Being a coach in elite sport can pose challenges to one’s wellbeing and sustainability, not least because individuals face obstacles to self-care and recovery. In this study, quantitative findings lend support to the importance of brief mindful self-reflections to impact self-compassion positively among HPCs. Moreover, the results of this mixed-method study can be interpreted to indicate that having experience as a HPC combined with self-reflection and strategies for self-care is fundamental for experiencing a sustainable career as a HPC.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for critical, valuable and supportive comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Sport Science and the Swedish Sports Confederation under Grant number 2019-0143.