Results and characteristics of the identified articles on dual careers and women in sport (<\/em>N=19).<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nBibliographic Code and Reference<\/td> Participants<\/td> DC (studies\/work)<\/td> Context<\/td> Type of study<\/td> Method of data collection<\/td> Theme<\/td><\/tr> 1. Bergstr\u00f6m et al. (2022)<\/td> 1 retired skier
Age: NA<\/td>Studies<\/td> Norway<\/td> Mixed<\/td> – Semi-structured interview
– Training diaries
– Rankings
– Syllabus data<\/td>– DC management
– Sporting and non-sporting transitions
– Barriers and Resources
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>2. Frederickson (2022)<\/td> 13 athletes;
Football, basketball, lacrosse, volleyball, softball, hockey, gymnastics and athletics
Ages: 22-34<\/td>Studies<\/td> United States<\/td> Qualitative<\/td> – Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC Management and DC Perception
– Transition to university
– Barriers and Resources
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>3. McGreary et al. (2021)<\/td> 6 football players
Age: 18-26<\/td>Studies<\/td> United Kingdom<\/td> Qualitative<\/td> – Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC Management and DC Perception
– Transition from junior to senior
– Transition to university
– Barriers
– Coping strategies
– Convergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>4. Pankow et al. (2021)<\/td> 6 athletes; Cross-country, rugby and athletics
Ages: 18-22<\/td>Studies<\/td> Canada<\/td> Qualitative longitudinal<\/td> – Semi-structured interview
– Diaries<\/td>– Mental Health
– DC management
– Convergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>5. Harrison et al. (2020)<\/td> 11 football players
Age: 16-22<\/td>Studies and Work<\/td> United Kingdom<\/td> Qualitative<\/td> – Semi-structured interview<\/td> – Future planning
– Transition to university
– DC Perception
– CAPs
– Barriers
– Parallel and divergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>6. Kavoura & Ryba (2020)<\/td> 6 judokas
Age: 20-27<\/td>Studies<\/td> Finland<\/td> Qualitative<\/td> – Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC management
– Future planning
– Identity
– Parallel and convergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>7. Perez-Rivases et al. (2020)
<\/td>72 athletes;
Sports: NA
Age: mean 17<\/td>Studies<\/td> Spain<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– DCCQ-A29
<\/td>– DC Competences and Management
– CAPs
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>8. Ronkainen et al. (2020)
<\/td>10 athletes
Sports: NA
Age: 19-22<\/td>Studies
<\/td>Finland<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– In-depth interviews<\/td> – DC Management and DC Perception
– Perfectionism
– Parallel and divergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>9. Slaten et al. (2020)
<\/td>14 athletes
Football and Hockey
Age: 18-23<\/td>Studies
<\/td>United States<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC Management and DC Perception
– CAPs
– Transition to university
– Sports identity
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>10. Cooper & Jackson (2019)
<\/td>4 athletes
Sports: Olympians
Age: NA<\/td>Studies
<\/td>United States<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Individual interviews
– Focus Group Interview
– Demographic questionnaire<\/td>– DC Management and DC Perception
– Identity and roles
– Resources and Careers
– Convergent and parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>11. Andersson & Barker-Ruchti (2018)
<\/td>7 football players
Age: Over 22<\/td>Studies and Work<\/td> Sweden<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview
– Bibliographic mapping<\/td>– DC management
– Career paths
– Transition from junior to senior
– Convergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>12. Kristiansen & Stensrud (2017)
<\/td>6 female handball players
Age: 13-14<\/td>Studies
<\/td>Norway<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview
– Physical tests<\/td>– DC management
– Sporting and non-sporting transitions
– Puberty
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>13. Perez-Rivases et al. (2017a)
<\/td>3 athletes
Waterpolo and Swimming
Age: 18<\/td>Studies
<\/td>Spain<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview<\/td> – Transition to university
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>14. Madsen & McGarry (2016)
<\/td>13 athletes
Football, basketball, volleyball, rowing, lacrosse, field and ice hockey, athletics and tennis
Age: NA<\/td>Studies<\/td> United States<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Focus Group
– Semi-structured interview<\/td>– DC Perception
– Future planning
– Gender roles
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>15. Gledhill & Harwood (2015)
<\/td>13 retired football players
Age: mean 19<\/td>Studies
<\/td>United Kingdom<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC Perception
– Holistic perspective
– DC management
– Parallel and divergent trajectory<\/td><\/tr>16. Han et al. (2015)
<\/td>13 athletes
Age: 15-17<\/td>Studies
<\/td>South Korea<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC Identity
– Gender roles
– Barriers
– DC management
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>17. Falls & Wilson (2013)
<\/td>12 football players
Age: 23-30<\/td>Studies<\/td> United States<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– Oral History Interview<\/td> – Sporting and non-sporting transitions
– Transition to university
– Identity
– Parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>18. Selva et al. (2013)
<\/td>23 active and retired sportswomen
Sports: Olympians and non-Olympians.
Age: 18-39<\/td>Studies and Work<\/td> Spain
<\/td>Qualitative
<\/td>– Semi-structured interview<\/td> – DC management
– Barriers and Resources
– Linear, parallel and convergent trajectories
– Retired<\/td><\/tr>19. Debois et al. (2012)
<\/td>1 retired fencer
Age: NA<\/td>Studies and Work<\/td> France<\/td> Qualitative
<\/td>– In-depth interview
– Notes from advisory and follow-up interviews<\/td>– Sporting and non-sporting transitions
– Transition from junior to senior
– Retired
– Convergent and parallel trajectory<\/td><\/tr>Note: abbreviations used Table 2 <\/em> DC: Dual Career; CAPs: Career Assistance Programmes; DCCQ-A: Dual Career Competency Questionnaire for Athletes; NA: Not Available<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n