Athlete and practitioner insights regarding a novel Coping Oriented Personal-Disclosure Mutual-Sharing (COPDMS) intervention in youth soccer

This paper aimed to provide athlete and practitioner insights regarding a novel Coping Oriented Personal-Disclosure Mutual-Sharing (COPDMS) intervention developed and administered in youth soccer. Participants were 18 male soccer athletes (Mage = 17.29 ± .73 years) who belonged to the same professional academy in England. The COPDMS intervention comprised an initial sport psychology education session (week 1), a session introducing COPDMS (week 2), a COPDMS session (week 4), and a follow-up session (week 9). During the COPDMS session, athletes mutually-shared personal stories and/or information about transitions as they approached a time where they would gain a professional contract or would be released from their soccer academy. Athletes communicated a range of contextually-relevant demand and resource appraisals during the COPDMS session. Several athlete and practitioner insights about the COPDMS process and outcomes were provided which can guide future research and practitioners seeking to develop and deliver bespoke PDMS interventions in sport.

that PDMS could be used with a variety of athlete cases and for a range of different scenarios 1 in sport. A scenario common in sports such as soccer is the prospect athletes face of either 2 being released from an organization or being awarded a senior professional contract. Moving 3 from youth to senior sport represents the youth-to-senior transition which is considered the 4 most difficult change athletes face during their career (Stambulova,Alfermann,Statler,& 5 Côté, 2009) because the transition may endure for 1-4 years (Finn & McKenna, 2010). 6 According to the Athletic Career Transition Model (ACTM, Stambulova, 2003), the youth-to-7 senior transition is also difficult because transition represents a complex process involving 8 several demands, barriers, coping resources, outcomes, and long-term consequences. For 9 example, Pummell, Harwood, and Lavallee (2008) revealed that the main sources of stress for 10 10 transitioning young event riders stemmed from a host of transition-related pressures (e.g., 11 living-up to expectations), institutional issues/lack of support (e.g., lack of teacher 12 understanding), and sport career/lifestyle pressures (e.g., school tests clashing with 13 competitive season). Pummell et al. (2008) also found that resources (e.g., motivation for the 14 transition) influenced transitional experiences. Notably, the ACTM (Stambulova, 2003) 15 posits that a number of internal and external factors (e.g., insufficient preparation) can 16 impede transition. Perhaps increasing awareness of demand and resource appraisals relating 17 to the youth-to-senior transition through a novel Coping Oriented form of PDMS (COPDMS) 18 could help athletes prepare for gaining a professional contract (making the transition) or 19 being released from an organization altogether (failing to make the transition). 20 Theoretically, the Cognitive Appraisal paradigm (see Lazarus, 1999) asserts that 21 emotion and behaviour depend on how individuals evaluate the relevance of encounters with 22 their environment (primary appraisal) and subsequent coping potential (secondary appraisal). 23 Similarly, the Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes (the TCTSA; see Jones,24 Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009) proposes that the balance between demand and 25 Running head: COPING ORIENTED PDMS 4 resource appraisals determines emotional, physiological, and performance outcomes. Akin to 1 such models of stress appraisal, the ACTM (Stambulova, 2003) asserts that coping with 2 transitional demands stems from a dynamic balance between transitional barriers and 3 available resources/support mechanisms. Successful (or adaptive) transitions are made when 4 resources meet or exceed transitional demands whilst unsuccessful (or maladaptive) 5 transitions are made when demands exceed resources. Drawing on stress appraisal models 6 and the ACTM, increasing athlete-awareness of demand and resource appraisals through 7 COPDMS could develop an athlete's coping potential for future events by enabling an athlete 8 to meet or exceed associated situational demands (Jones et al.). 9 To help prepare for scenarios such as within-career transitions, literature would 10 suggest that athletes can employ anticipatory, preventative, or proactive coping strategies 11 (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997). Such future-oriented coping strategies are considered beneficial 12 because athletes make deliberate efforts to prevent future stressors from occurring or modify 13 the form of a stressor to reduce its potential negative impact (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997). 14 Research has indeed revealed that 33 female adolescent netball athletes identified the 15 importance of future-oriented coping (e.g., planning ahead) in the effective management of 16 stressors and the attainment of personal goals (Devonport, Lane, & Biscomb, 2013). Yet 17 Tamminen and Holt (2010) found that female basketball athletes were typically more reactive 18 in their coping efforts over the course of a season. During reactive coping, athletes attempt to 19 deal with a stressful encounter that has already happened or is happening concurrently rather 20 than one that will be experienced in the near future (Devonport et al., 2013). Perhaps athletes 21 rely on reactive coping when they struggle to anticipate potential stressors. For instance, 22 McDonough et al. (2013) found that a sample of 8 adolescent swimmers only anticipated 23 23% of the stressors they encountered across a season whilst accurately anticipating coping 24 strategies they would use 21% of the time. Without sufficient information, athletes would 25 that would help to develop future-oriented coping strategies. 12 The aim of this paper is to provide athlete and practitioner insights regarding a novel 13 COPDMS intervention in a youth soccer context. The value of athlete and practitioner 14 insights in applied practice is that they can provide information regarding the nuances and 15 idiosyncrasies of interventions and their delivery procedures which enable refinement and 16 future development (Barker, McCarthy, Jones, & Moran, 2011). In this paper, we present 17 detail around our case, our COPDMS intervention, demand and resource appraisals 18 communicated during our COPDMS session, athlete and practitioner insights, applied 19 implications, limitations, and future researcher recommendations. Specifically, this paper 20 seeks to contribute to professional practice and PDMS literatures by providing critical 21 insights that assist practitioners in developing and delivering their own bespoke PDMS 22 interventions to suit scenarios and needs applicable to athlete cases.   (Harwood, Drew, & Knight, 2010). Athletes were either in the first (n = 8) 5 or second year (n = 10) of their scholarship contract and predominantly competed in their 6 U18s team. A range of ethnic backgrounds were represented including White British, White 7 European, and Black African. All positions in a soccer team were also represented including 8 goalkeepers (n = 2), defenders (n = 5), midfielders (n = 8), and forwards (n = 3). During 9 March 2015, second year scholars were to be informed by coaches whether they would be 10 awarded a professional contract or would be released from their soccer academy at the end of 11 their scholarship contract. Decisions about professional contracts for first year scholars were 12 more likely to occur at the end of their scholarship contract during March 2016. We therefore 13 developed and delivered a novel COPDMS intervention for our case given athletes were 14 approaching a period in their career that would require significant coping potential to succeed 15 (Finn & McKenna, 2010). 16 Institutional ethical approval and informed consent from the soccer academy were 17 gained prior to the intervention. Athletes volunteered their participation by signing an 18 informed consent sheet. Here, athletes agreed to waiving their right to anonymity and 19 confidentiality given they were participating in a communication-based intervention. Athletes 20 also agreed with the COPDMS session being video-recorded to enable the production of CD 21 copies of the COPDMS session for subsequent reflection. 22 Prior to implementing our COPDMS intervention, we sought to confirm the 23 suitability of doing PDMS. First, we ascertained potential public speaking anxiety among our 24 athletes given public speaking is a common social phobia in youth populations (Furmark et 25 al., 1999). The Educational Welfare Officer at the soccer club explained that athletes 1 regularly engaged in public speaking activities during personal and athletic development 2 workshops. Second, our athletes shared a common goal of attaining a professional contract. 3 We appreciated there was the potential for our athletes to be reluctant to disclose information 4 through COPDMS due to viewing other team members as rivals and threats to achieving their 5 own professional contract. Across our COPDMS intervention, we therefore framed COPDMS 6 as a strategy that would assist each athlete's development by promoting key demand and 7 resource appraisals central to coping that may otherwise remain unknown. Third, we agreed 8 that COPDMS would enable athletes to hear the thoughts and feelings of other athletes 9 undergoing similar experiences. Dryden (2006) suggested that collaborative personal-10 disclosure underpinned by mutual-sharing can encourage empathetic understanding due to 11 individuals sharing similar experiences. Empathetic understanding has been posited to 12 underpin the emergence of personal motives, morals, beliefs, and attitudes (Ribner, 1974) 13 which we aimed to achieve through COPDMS. We also deemed that empathetic 14 understanding between practitioners and athletes would have been limited in one-to-one 15 intervention because we were not nor ever had been soccer academy athletes striving for a 16 professional contract. Similar to Evans et al. (2013), we echoed a person-centred counselling 17 approach whereby COPDMS was planned with our athletes at the forefront of our thinking.  fourth, fifth, and sixth authors held no sport psychology accreditations and therefore 23 contributed to developing and delivering the intervention under the first author's supervision.

24
Only the fourth author worked at the soccer club as a part-time performance analyst. Similar to Evans et al. (2013), we began our COPDMS intervention with an initial 1 sport psychology education session (week 1) so the first, fifth, and sixth authors could build 2 some rapport with athletes. We were not concerned about the lack of rapport between these 3 authors and athletes prior to our COPDMS session since limited rapport between practitioners 4 and athletes does not impede the quality of information shared during PDMS sessions (Evans 5 et al.). This initial education session was also deemed necessary as our athletes were 6 receiving psychological support that was not wholly sport-specific. Based on Windsor et al. information before completing their COPDMS session (week 4), ask questions, and seek any 10 support from the first author, fourth author, and Educational Welfare Officer. Finally, we 11 included a follow-up session following a Christmas break (week 9). Whilst our PDMS 12 session contained a reflection that served as an opportunity for debriefing (Windsor et al.), we 13 wanted to provide opportunity for further reflection to reinforce information emanating from 14 our COPDMS session.

16
Initial education 17 Our initial sport psychology education session was held in the soccer academy's education  Introduction to COPDMS 23 Athletes were introduced to COPDMS during a second session held in the soccer academy's 24 education room. The Educational Welfare Officer was present to suggest to athletes that 25 COPDMS would be beneficial for their development and not harm their welfare. Including 1 the Educational Welfare Officer was therefore anticipated to help overcome potential 2 resistance to PDMS that athletes have expressed previously (Evans et al., 2013) whilst 3 encouraging active participation (Barker et al., 2014). The session began with a reflection on 4 sport psychology to consolidate knowledge, confirm our presence, and provide further 5 opportunity to develop rapport. Athletes were then handed an A4-sheet of paper containing 6 four instructions and informed that the upcoming COPDMS session would involve preparing 7 and sharing personal stories and/or information aligned to instructions: 8 Instruction 1. Within your soccer career you will go through several changes. Provide 9 an overview of the changes you have made as a person and as a soccer athlete. What were the 10 demands or challenges associated with the changes you have made? How did you think, feel, 11 and behave before, during, and after the changes you have identified? 12 Instruction 2. Describe a change you have made in your soccer career that was less 13 successful than you hoped. Explain the demands or challenges associated with the change.
14 Describe any factors (e.g., thoughts, feelings, or behaviors) that you feel contributed to the 15 change being less successful than you anticipated. 16 Instruction 3. Describe a highly successful change you have made in your soccer 17 career. Explain the demands or challenges associated with the change. Describe any factors 18 (e.g., thoughts, feelings, or behaviors) that you feel contributed to the change being highly 19 successful.  in life and soccer (primary appraisal) and describe their coping potential (secondary appraisal 1 or resource appraisal). Instructions 1, 2, and 3 also prompted athletes to articulate demands 2 associated with events in life and soccer (demand appraisal) and explain how their cognitive 3 appraisal influenced emotion and behavior. Generally, instructions were developed to allow 4 athletes to recognize and articulate the main differences between less successful and highly 5 successful transitions which was anticipated to elucidate key resources that could meet or 6 exceed demands associated with attempting to gain a professional contract or being released 7 from a soccer academy. Instructions were verified by an independent sport psychology 8 researcher/consultant with vast experience of doing PDMS in elite youth soccer. 9 To ensure quality stories were delivered, athletes were advised to be open and honest, were also advised to type or hand-write stories to aid delivery. A series of ground rules were 12 then communicated to athletes which formed a PDMS contract between individuals in the 13 room. Establishing ground rules through a PDMS contract is common practice (e.g., Evans et 14 al.) and highlights key ethical and procedural elements that contribute to the potential success 15 of a PDMS intervention (Holt & Dunn, 2006). Our PDMS contract reminded athletes that 16 their awareness of resource appraisals that could assist them when coping with future events 17 would depend on their willingness to disclose information which was expected to further 18 promote task engagement. Our PDMS contract also made athletes aware of the importance of 19 confidentiality and professional conduct given the potentially sensitive nature of information 20 to be disclosed. To further promote professionalism, athletes were advised to prepare for the 21 COPDMS session just like they would prepare for a soccer match. We attempted to ease any 22 concerns about public speaking by explaining that the delivery of a personal story was not a 23 test and information disclosed would not determine decisions about professional contracts.

24
Finally, athletes were encouraged to listen, attend, enjoy, and learn from the experience. The 25 session concluded with athletes reflecting on the upcoming COPDMS session and 1 instructions. We were careful not to inform athletes about what to include in their stories so 2 that stories remained personal. There were no obvious signs of resistance from athletes and 3 the session lasted around 50 minutes. 4 The COPDMS session 5 An environment conducive to sharing information was created by arranging chairs in a semi-  (Dryden, 2006). 12 After reinforcing our PDMS contract, a volunteer was invited to initiate the COPDMS 13 session. We explained that each athlete would make their way to the front of the room in turn, 14 share information, and receive a round of applause. After the first disclosure, we attempted to 15 further alleviate any concerns about public speaking by acknowledging the positive reaction 16 of athletes. Similar to past research (Holt & Dunn, 2006), those athletes who shared their 17 personal story towards the beginning of the COPDMS session were thorough in their 18 disclosure which aided engagement and set a precedent for other athletes to follow. 19 Half-way through the COPDMS activity, one athlete refused to continue speaking 20 after responding to instruction 1. This athlete still wanted to disclose information but was not 21 confident in doing so during their first attempt. We were mindful not to reprimand the athlete 22 to avoid thwarting self-esteem (Barker et al., 2014). We were also keen to encourage active 23 participation and provide support so we presented our athlete with two options. Option A 24 involved the athlete taking a moment before continuing to deliver information. Option B 25 involved the athlete continuing to deliver information at the end of the activity (which was 1 duly accepted). Encountering athletes that are initially resistant to disclosing information 2 during PDMS sessions is not uncommon (Evans et al., 2013). Furthermore, Windsor et al. 3 (2011) illustrated that five athletes who did not initially feel comfortable in disclosing 4 information subsequently delivered personal stories spontaneously. We therefore adhered to 5 our athlete's wishes by providing further opportunities for our athlete to disclose information 6 at a time most comfortable for them. At the end of the COPDMS activity, this athlete was 7 invited to continue sharing information but again appeared distressed. Accordingly, we 8 encouraged our athlete to talk about a highly successful transition (prompted by instruction 3) 9 rather than a less successful transition (prompted by instruction 2) which echoed a positive 10 approach to psychology that was anticipated to ease distress (Seligman, Steen, Park, & 11 Peterson, 2005). The athlete valued our invitation but declined to speak further. Our athlete 12 expressed not feeling comfortable in disclosing information but still wanted to remain in the 13 COPDMS session. Indeed, we were mindful not to exclude athletes from our COPDMS 14 session to avoid disrupting team dynamics by ostracising athletes from their team. Moreover, 15 it is likely that listening to teammates can provide useful vicarious information and result in 16 athletes experiencing beneficial outcomes (Bandura, 1997). A follow-up consultation took 17 place between this athlete and the Educational Welfare Officer to provide an opportunity for 18 the athlete to experience catharsis resulting from the recall of a potentially painful memory 19 (Jarvis, 2004). 20 Following the final disclosure, athletes were commended for their preparation, 21 openness, effort, and bravery. Time spent sharing information lasted around 35 minutes. The 22 average speaking time per athlete was approximately 120 seconds which is line with previous 23 PDMS sessions (e.g., Evans et al., 2013). A summary of the changes, demands, and resources 24 described within personal stories can be found in Table 1 which emanated from watching the 25 video-recorded COPDMS session retrospectively and noting down information. For the 1 remainder of the session, a reflection was held around the information disclosed during the 2 PDMS activity (circa 35 minutes). 3 Follow-up 4 Athletes were welcomed into the soccer academy's education room and handed an A4 sheet 5 of paper and a CD copy of the COPDMS session. The A4 sheet of paper included a reminder 6 of the COPDMS activity and guidelines, key information disclosed during the COPDMS 7 session, and an invitation to contact the authors. Athletes discussed the content of the A4 14 Nevertheless, our athletes described some contextually-relevant demand and resource 15 appraisals not identified in past research such as contractual pressures and arriving late to 16 their soccer academy (see Table 1). Resource appraisals described also spanned several 17 future-oriented coping strategies. Generally, our athletes communicated proactive 18 anticipatory coping strategies (e.g., being prepared) which have been associated with 19 effective future-oriented coping (e.g., Devonport et al., 2013). More specifically, our athletes 20 communicated problem-focused (e.g., learning from mistakes) and appraisal-focused 21 strategies (e.g., reappraisal) with no descriptions of emotion-focused or avoidance-focused 22 coping. Perhaps athletes communicated anticipatory coping strategies given the nature of 23 PDMS instructions. For example, athletes appeared to interpret instruction 4 as a prompt to 24 talk about controllable factors that would help them gain a professional contract. It seems 25 appropriate that athletes discussed what they could control in the lead-up to learning about 1 decisions regarding professional contracts given these decisions were uncontrollable. Indeed, 2 Lazarus and Folkman (1984) emphasized that problem-focused coping is effective when 3 conditions are amenable to change. It would have therefore been futile for athletes to 4 emphasize problem-focused coping around a decision that was uncontrollable. Perhaps our 5 athletes were focused on demonstrating they were being proactive in their coping to show 6 others they could cope with stressors relating to soccer academy life that might prepare them 7 for being a professional soccer athlete. 8 Athlete insights 9 Insights into the COPDMS process and outcomes associated with participating in the 10 COPDMS session were gathered from five athletes immediately before the follow-up session. When we first found out I wasn't really looking forward to doing it. Like I don't think 18 many people really thought when we first got told about it that it was going to be like 19 beneficial. You just thought another thing you have to do just being here. 20 Perhaps athletes initially questioned COPDMS because they were naïve to PDMS at the 21 intervention onset. Despite initial concerns, one athlete explained that athletes appeared to 22 come through a challenging experience together: I mean me telling people was a bit hard at the start but whilst I was talking I felt more 10 confident […] I wanted to tell everyone more and more. And it was quite great to see 11 people obviously pay attention [and] obviously respect [me] as well. 12 This athlete also appeared to experience positive emotion because the delivery of their 13 personal story was cathartic: 14 Umm to be fair with you if you can remember mine I just kept going and going. I 15 couldn't stop. I didn't want to stop because I was at the moment where, you know, I 16 was just delivering it and it was just a great feeling, you know, coz it felt like, you 17 know, something's shrugged off my shoulders. But it was good. It was good. 18 One athlete explained that their confidence in delivering information was tempered slightly 19 by the emotionality of the previous athlete's disclosure. Another athlete explained that 20 providing more time for athletes to disclose information would have reduced the   Athletes who were first year scholars frequently explained how listening to second year 16 scholars helped them to prepare and plan for gaining a professional contract or being 17 released. For example, one athlete said: "Listening to them like just the little things every day 18 that sometimes you might not be bothered to do but if you are in their position next year you 19 can think back to all these little things." Another athlete (a first year scholar) believed that 20 COPDMS would assist second year scholars with preparing for gaining a professional didn't go right or stuff like that. 30 One athlete commented that approach-focused behavior (e.g., effort) was encouraged by  Talking about it and realizing that I have been through [transition] before, it's sorta 21 made me realize I can get through it whatever happens. So it's just how we prepare 22 properly and now I'm sort of […] comfortably prepared if the worst comes to worse. 23 Another athlete explained that talking about gaining a professional contract or being released 24 through COPDMS improved their self-confidence around others: "I think it makes you more 25 confident around the group." Again, theories of stress appraisal (e.g., the TCTSA; Jones et 26 al., 2009) assert that self-confidence is a key resource appraisal for coping potential. For 27 example, being confident protects athletes from the negative effects of stressors by instigating 28 a challenge rather than a threat appraisal state (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012).

29
Understanding self and others. Similar to Holt and Dunn (2004), athlete insights 1 indicated that COPDMS may have helped athletes understand more about themselves and 2 others. For example, one athlete explained that listening to other athletes share information 3 gave them comfort that they could share information with others. The comfort felt by this 4 athlete appeared to stem from the fact that all athletes were undergoing a similar experience: there is someone like me to talk to. They've been through the same scenario I guess. 16 This insight appears logical given that PDMS has been posited to promote empathetic 17 understanding (Dryden, 2006) which according to person-centered counselling approaches 18 (see Rogers, 1951) would foster openness between individuals. One athlete also suggested 19 that the opportunity to have the attention of all athletes was difficult to achieve in their soccer  If I did like get released it would be a bit, you know, sad and stuff. But I will look at it 23 as a positive because it's not like it's the end of the world and I have been in worse 24 situations than not being shown a piece of paper. So I will just brush it off eventually.

25
Put simply, COPDMS appeared to remind this athlete that being released would be bad but 26 not awful because there are worse things that could happen than not gaining a professional 27 soccer contract. Another athlete also appeared to demonstrate anti-awfulizing by describing 28 that some good can come from being released: 29 1 before being released so, at the time obviously I was only 14 so it … so it was the end 2 of the world for me. But coming here it sorta, it sorta opened me up, and sorta made 3 me realize it was the best thing that had ever happened to me being released, so that 4 sorta negative can turn into a positive. 5 Perhaps asking athletes to talk about overcoming adversity emphasized to athletes that some 6 good can come from making less successful transitions (anti-awfulizing) whilst future 7 stressors could be tolerated (high frustration tolerance; see . Indeed, 8 some athletes described how learning from mistakes was an important coping strategy for 9 dealing with decisions around professional contracts (see Table 1). REPDMS sessions have 10 also been found to enhance rational thinking (Vertopoulos & Turner, 2017). Perhaps 11 COPDMS promoted rational thinking because athletes talked about events, helpful/unhelpful 12 thinking, and emotion/behavior which aligns itself to the ABC framework of REBT (see 13 Turner & Barker, 2013). Rational thinking and coping potential evidenced in athlete insights 14 may explain why athletes appeared focused on enjoying their soccer in preparation for 15 learning about decisions around professional contracts. Indeed, rational thinking is associated 16 with psychological well-being  whilst enhanced resource appraisal 17 positively correlates to enjoyment (Cerin, 2003). 18 Practitioner Insights 19 Practitioner insights into the COPDMS intervention were generated from discussions 20 between the authors during and immediately following the COPDMS intervention. Notably, 21 we felt our COPDMS instructions were effective at encouraging athletes to disclose coping 22 oriented information relevant to our topic of interest. The effectiveness of our COPDMS 23 instructions is evidenced by the range of demand and resource appraisals relating to 24 transitions communicated during our COPDMS session (see Table 1). We therefore deemed 25 that COPDMS served as a useful athlete-centred strategy as our COPDMS intervention 26 encouraged athletes to communicate contextually-relevant demand and resource appraisals 27 from their perspective. Additionally, we felt that doing COPDMS with athletes familiar with 1 public speaking contributed to in-depth information being disclosed (see Table 1), helped 2 athletes feel less threatened about COPDMS, and explained why none of our athletes showed 3 signs of resistance when COPDMS was introduced. Indeed, Holt and Dunn (2006) suggested 4 that exposing athletes to communication exercises that prepare athletes for public speaking 5 and social evaluation can reduce public speaking anxiety. Nevertheless, we believed that our 6 intervention could have benefitted athletes further had we involved senior club professionals 7 in our COPDMS session. We did consider inviting senior club professionals to participate in 8 our COPDMS session but senior club professionals were unavailable due to their sporting 9 commitments. Senior club professionals could have provided an account of their transitional 10 experience in our COPDMS session which might have unearthed other contextually-relevant 11 demand and resource appraisals to our athletes. We also did not expect our COPDMS 12 instructions to prompt some athletes to disclose sensitive information in our COPDMS 13 session. In particular, one athlete appeared distressed when disclosing information relating to 14 instruction 2. Finally, we were unable to collect data from all participants to explore effects 15 and evaluate perceptions of our COPDMS intervention due to unforeseen time constraints 16 and competing club priorities that arose during our intervention. We deemed it more ethical 17 to deliver all stages of our COPDMS intervention rather than sacrifice an important PDMS   Fourth, athletes appear to be comfortable delivering a personal story when they have lots of 9 information to disclose. Ensuring PDMS instructions elicit detailed information and/or 10 personal stories may help athletes experience comfort during PDMS sessions. Fifth, athletes 11 experience comfort and self-confidence in disclosing information when they are respected by 12 others. Emphasizing and upholding respect during PDMS sessions would therefore appear 13 beneficial for helping athletes disclose information. Sixth, disclosing information during 14 PDMS sessions can be an uncomfortable experience for some athletes who are recalling 15 adverse experiences. For such athletes, it would seem beneficial to provide every opportunity 16 to disclose information as disclosing information could be cathartic and help athletes 17 experience positive emotion. Seventh, an athlete's self-confidence in disclosing information 18 can be tempered by the emotionality of a previous athlete's disclosure. Reinforcing the 19 importance of each athlete's contribution following an emotionally charged disclosure may 20 protect self-confidence in athletes preparing to speak. Eighth, PDMS sessions appear most 21 effective when they are focused on a particular topic area. Ensuring that speaking time 22 encourages athletes to be focused in their disclosure so that PDMS sessions do not lose their 23 focus could be beneficial. Practitioners seeking to develop bespoke PDMS instructions would 24 therefore benefit from limiting instructions to a few areas or themes. Ninth, administering 25 multiple bouts of PDMS to athletes may engender other PDMS outcomes or prolong PDMS 1 outcomes across time. In Barker et al. (2014), however, athletes explained that a MOPDMS 2 session was less emotionally engaging compared to a ROPDMS session delivered ten days creative regarding the potential use of PDMS in sport so that other unknown forms of PDMS 10 can be developed and administered to athletes. 11 Several applied implications also emerge based on athlete insights into COPDMS 12 outcomes. First, our COPDMS session encouraged athletes to approach the scenario of 13 gaining a professional contract or being released from their academy. Using COPDMS would 14 therefore appear beneficial in helping athletes confront an upcoming event or scenario. 15 Second, athletes expressed feeling more confident in themselves and around others and 16 understood more about themselves and others after participating in our COPDMS session. 17 That said, enhanced self-confidence and understanding of the self and others have been 18 associated with other forms of PDMS (see Dunn & Holt, 2004) which suggests that such 19 outcomes may be a product of undergoing the PDMS process rather than a particular form of 20 PDMS. Third, understanding more about others during PDMS appears to encourage athletes 21 to want to be more open outside of PDMS sessions. PDMS may therefore provide a catalyst 22 for promoting openness between athletes in sporting environments. Fourth, PDMS enables 23 athletes to hear the views of others. Finally, our COPDMS session seemed to influence 24 cognitive appraisal. In particular, athletes explained that COPDMS promoted anti-awfulizing.
Reduced irrational beliefs have been associated with REPDMS sessions (see Vertopoulos & 1 Turner, 2017) which implies that practitioners could use both COPDMS and REPDMS to 2 manipulate elements of irrational thinking in athletes. 3 The final batch of applied implications are based on practitioner insights on designing 4 and delivering a novel COPDMS intervention. To develop effective PDMS instructions, it 5 would be advisable for practitioners to initially explore literature relevant to a situation or 6 need. Theories and research could be then used to formulate PDMS instructions that would 7 encourage athletes to disclose information during PDMS sessions that would manipulate 8 outcomes beneficial to a situation or need. Having PDMS instructions verified by an 9 experienced PDMS practitioner would also help to confirm their relevance and suitability.

10
Additionally, pilot-testing PDMS instructions or holding discussions about PDMS 11 instructions with alternative samples may help practitioners prepare for the type of 12 information disclosed during PDMS sessions. Practitioner insights revealed that COPDMS 13 was useful for unearthing contextually-relevant demand and resource appraisals relating to 14 gaining a professional contract or being released from a soccer academy. Perhaps 15 practitioners may wish to use COPDMS to understand demand and resource appraisals 16 applicable to other transitions (e.g., retirement) or scenarios (e.g., injury) within and across 17 sports. To maximize the quality of PDMS sessions, it would appear beneficial for 18 practitioners to determine the suitability of using PDMS with their athlete sample. In 19 particular, doing PDMS with athletes familiar with public speaking would help maximize the 20 success of PDMS sessions. When planning PDMS interventions, it is recommended that 21 practitioners consider involving other individuals in PDMS sessions (e.g., senior athletes) 22 who also disclose information and/or personal stories that would benefit an athlete's situation 23 or need. In our COPDMS session, we were not prepared nor expected an athlete to 24 experience distress when attempting to disclose information. Rather than providing optional 25 support to athletes (see Evans et al., 2013), we argue that practitioners should discuss the 1 content of personal stories with athletes on a one-to-one basis prior to PDMS sessions. 2 Distressed athletes typically display avoidance tendencies (Lee, Orsillo, Roemer, & Allen, 3 2009) which suggests that athletes distressed about PDMS are unlikely to seek optional 4 support. Providing scheduled support to athletes would therefore enable practitioners to gain 5 a greater understanding of athletes who appear distressed by PDMS and help practitioners 6 prepare and support such athletes through the PDMS experience. We also urge practitioners 7 delivering COPDMS sessions to have support, referral, and follow-up procedures in place 8 given the type of information that could be disclosed during COPDMS sessions. Finally, 9 practitioners seeking to explore the effects and perceptions of PDMS sessions may benefit 10 from agreeing data collection sessions prior to the intervention onset and making them a 11 valued component of the PDMS intervention. Being flexible with data collection methods 12 would be advisable given that contextual factors (e.g., time constraints) may mean certain 13 types of data (e.g., qualitative data generated from semi-structured interviews) are not 14 feasible to collect. 15 Limitations and Ideas for Future Research 16 In this paper, we have provided athlete and practitioner insights relating to a novel COPDMS 17 intervention. To advance knowledge, future researchers could explore the effects of 18 COPDMS for preparing to gain a professional contract or being released from a sporting 19 organization by measuring coping, stress-related, and transitional outcomes at pre-COPDMS 20 and post-COPDMS intervention phases. For example, future researchers could measure an 21 athlete's readiness for an anticipated transition across a COPDMS intervention. To further 22 document the efficacy of COPDMS for coping, data are needed to confirm whether future- 23 oriented coping strategies communicated within our COPDMS session were prompted by 24 COPDMS or were already instigated prior to our intervention. Future researchers could also 25 explore perceptions of participating in COPDMS by using qualitative methodologies such as 1 social validation (see Evans et al., 2013). Future researchers seeking to confirm the effects of 2 COPDMS may benefit from implementing a single-case research methodology (see Barker et 3 al., 2011) where the delivery of COPDMS is staggered over time across multiple groups. 4 Each PDMS group would receive the same COPDMS intervention with any replicated 5 intervention effects improving intervention efficacy. Employing single-case research 6 methodologies would overcome the ethical dilemma of withholding a potentially useful 7 intervention in a control group. Future researchers could alternatively use a crossover design 8 by randomly assigning two groups of athletes to complete COPDMS and an alternative 9 coping intervention. Using random assignment in future research would overcome potential 10 selection bias associated with our intervention whilst completing COPDMS and an 11 alternative coping intervention would enable the efficacy of varying coping interventions to 12 be compared. The practitioner delivering a PDMS intervention as part of a randomized 13 crossover design study could be blinded to the specific PDMS outcomes being measured to 14 restrict demand characteristics.

16
In this paper, we developed and delivered a novel COPDMS intervention for soccer athletes 17 approaching a time where they would either secure a professional contract or be released 18 from their soccer academy. To this end, our COPDMS session provided a medium for 19 athletes to communicate a range of demand and resource appraisals pertinent to gaining a 20 professional contract or being released. The many athlete and practitioner insights provided 21 highlight the idiosyncrasies associated with our COPDMS intervention which can inform 22 future researchers and practitioners in their use of PDMS in sport. The range of implications 23 arising from athlete and practitioner insights ultimately provides practitioners with useful 24 guidance when seeking to design and deliver bespoke PDMS interventions in sport.