Collegiate Student-Athlete Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract
Introduction: Exercise imposes a physiological stressor on the body which is amplified as training intensifies. Collegiate fall-sport student-athletes return after summer break (off-season) and have approximately two weeks of training (preseason) with coaching staff before competition begins. The 2020 fall season was preceded by a five-month period away from campus due to the timing of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This also meant all commercial gyms and training facilities were closed, and student-athletes were forced to train with the resources they had at home. Upon return to campus, significant changes were made to practice and competition structures in attempt to keep student-athletes safe and minimize COVID-19 exposures and illnesses. Specifically, certain conferences and sports, such as SEC volleyball, opted to compete only within-conference, facing the same opponent on two consecutive days, with each pair of matches (Match Day I and Match Day II) separated by approximately one week. The competitive season took place over approximately 42 weeks and spanned both the fall and spring academic semesters. Purpose: The aims of this dissertation were: 1) to determine the impact of COVID-19 and stay-at-home orders on collegiate student-athletes’ training and mental health; 2) to assess internal and external workloads over an atypical year-long volleyball season modified due to COVID-19 restrictions; 3) to assess workload, performance, and well-being during the first collegiate volleyball season after COVID-19. Methods: First, collegiate student-athletes (n = 401; age= 20 ± 2 y) completed an 84-question anonymous survey regarding demographics, sport/exercise training, nutrition, sleep habits, and mental health. Response frequencies were calculated for each question and Chi-square analyses were used to determine statistical significance (α=0.05). For the second aim, NCAA Division I female indoor volleyball student-athletes (N=18) were evaluated via heart rate monitors and accelerometers during all team activities during the 2020-2021 season. Repeated measures correlations were used to determine relationships between internal and external workloads and linear mixed effects models were used to assess changes in workloads over the season and differences in Match Day I and Match Day II workloads. To assess the third aim, NCAA Division I female volleyball student-athletes (N=19) completed daily session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) to determine internal workload, and weekly countermovement jumps (CMJ), training distress questionnaires, and sleep questionnaires throughout the fall 2021 competitive season. Repeated measures correlations were used to determine the relationships between variables. Linear mixed effects models were used to determine changes in each variable over the course of the season and between season phases. Results: While 80.7% of respondents indicated training for their sport, only 38.7% could fully perform their training programs. More Division I (44.4%) than Division III (27.3%) student-athletes reported they could perform their training plan as written (P<0.01). Cardiovascular exercise was the most common mode (87.5%) followed by resistance exercise (78.4%). Maintaining fitness and sport-specific skills (~70.0%) were the most common concerns. Additionally, ~60.6% of women and 41.9% of men indicated increased mental health concerns. The second study found significant relationships between internal workload and total distance (r = 0.929), accelerations (r = 0.675), and distances in Speed Zone 4 (r = 0.409) and Speed Zone 5 (r = 0.320) across sessions (P < 0.0001). Further, internal workload, total distance covered, and distance in Speed Zone 4 were highest during preseason compared to both fall and spring (P < 0.05). Although there were no differences in workload between matches played in fall versus spring, there were significant differences between match days with significantly higher internal workloads (P = 0.006) and distance covered (P = 0.04) in Match Day II compared to Match Day I. Lastly, in the season following the modified year, there were time main effects for sRPE, CMJ, training distress, and sleep scores (P<0.05) and weak relationships between sRPE and CMJ (r = 0.2; P = 0.03). Discussion: These findings suggest while student-athletes attempted to be diligent with training while at home, many reported difficulty continuing to train due to limited equipment, motivation, and mental health concerns. When student-athletes returned to campus and participated in an extended, modified season, the highest workloads occurred in the initial 2-week preseason followed by a sharp decline in the months leading up the fall matches. Additionally, both internal workload and total distance covered were higher in the fall compared to spring and in Match Day II compared to Match Day I when cumulative fatigue from the season is more likely to occur. As competition returned to typical formats, subjective training distress and sleep quality fluctuated while objective workload and performance measures remained stable. Conclusions: Discussions between coaches and student-athletes regarding training habits and feasibility when away from school may aid in determining student-athletes’ readiness to return to sport. This is especially important for student-athletes competing in fall sports due to the strenuous preseason. Furthermore, a comprehensive athlete-monitoring program to evaluate both physiological and psychological responses to stressors over the competitive season is important to mitigate non-functional overreaching and optimize athletic performance. Future analyses should investigate the relationship between objective and subjective measures on an individual level, rather than as a team, to expand the applications of the findings in this dissertation, as each student-athletes will respond differently to both training and non-training related stressors.