High school track experience gives baseball players an edge

 

A new study from a University of Florida sport management professor and colleagues is challenging long-held assumptions about how young athletes should train and suggesting that Major League Baseball teams might be missing players with a competitive edge.

The researchers found that baseball players who participated in high school track performed better at the professional level than those who specialized solely in baseball. Yet despite this measurable advantage, MLB teams do not appear to value track experience when drafting players or offering signing bonuses.

“It’s a bit of a Moneyball-type finding. There’s a clear performance benefit, but teams aren’t recognizing it when they make decisions about talent,” said Chris McLeod, Ph.D., an associate professor in UF’s Department of Sport Management.

Mcleod contributed to the project launched by Tiberiu Ungureanu, Ph.D., Jason Sigler, Ph.D., and Zeynep Yavic, Ph.D., who share doctoral roots at The Ohio State University.

The study, soon to be published in the Journal of Sport Management, draws on an unusually rich dataset. Supported by the Society of American Baseball Research, Ungureanu, Sigler and Yavic combined decades of detailed professional performance records with nearly 97,000 historical survey responses from baseball players, originally collected by historian William Weiss. The surveys included a key question: which sports players participated in during high school.

By linking those responses to long-term career outcomes, the team identified patterns that previous research missed.

Their findings point to specific advantages: track appears to develop speed, explosiveness and timing — skills that translate directly to success in baseball, particularly in base running and fielding. Other sports, such as basketball or football, did not show the same consistent benefit.

“Multisport participation isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer,” McLeod said. “It depends on whether the skills from one sport crossover to another. Other sports do not consistently relate to performance improvement for baseball players like track does.”

The implications extend beyond professional scouting. For families navigating the increasingly high-pressure world of youth sports, the research offers evidence against early specialization — a trend that has grown as travel teams and year-round training programs become more common.

“There’s a lot of anxiety among parents about making the ‘right’ choice for their child’s future,” McLeod said. “Our study is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that specializing early in baseball alone does not necessarily lead to better outcomes.”

To strengthen the study’s conclusions, the researchers also addressed a key question: are naturally faster athletes simply more likely to choose track? Using a statistical method called Coarsened Exact Matching, they compared players with similar physical characteristics, such as height and weight. Even after matching players on those factors, track participation remained linked to better performance.

The study also uncovered a disconnect in how talent is evaluated. Analysis of previously unexamined baseball scouting reports showed limited mention of track backgrounds or even negative references to track as a distraction from baseball. Players with track experience were not rated more highly by scouts, despite their later success.

For MLB organizations, the takeaway is straightforward: better use of available information could translate into more wins.

“For teams, this is about identifying undervalued talent,” McLeod said. “For athletes and families, it’s about making informed decisions. And for researchers, it shows how much we can learn when we combine new data with long-term performance records.”

---

DOI

10.1123/jsm.2025-0223 

Tips to help teachers in 21st century classrooms

 Where to Now? Teaching in the 21st Century is a research-informed book roviding in-depth discussions of teaching, from junior primary to Year 10 levels, while identifying and addressing the multi-faceted challenges that pre-service and early career teachers can face.

Dr Loretta Bowshall-Freeman, co-author of the book and Deputy Teaching Program Director (Education) at Flinders University’s College of Human Sciences and Culture, says the role of teachers has expanded in recent years – and key strategies are required to help pre-service and early career teachers navigate professional challenges while they also maintain focus on teaching priorities.

“This extends beyond the classroom. It includes ways to support pre-service and early career teachers as they prepare for a new teaching role, day-to-day and long-term professional logistic solutions, and effective approaches for working with curriculum and education policies,” says Dr Bowshall-Freeman.

The book also examines how teachers can prepare for new roles within their teaching responsibilities, embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, navigate curriculum and policy demands, manage classrooms effectively, and design inclusive, engaging and assessable learning opportunities.

It explores strategies for professional collaboration and networking to sustain long-term growth and reflective practice – and also provides case studies, recommended readings and guided responses.

“Teaching today is not a script that teachers simply follow. In every lesson, teachers are reading the room, noticing who is engaging, who is struggling, who’s thinking is emerging, and what needs to happen next,” says book co-author and Flinders University colleague Dr Rozi Binte Rahmat.

“This book was written for those real classroom moments, offering practical, research-informed strategies that help teachers make confident and responsive decisions.”

Teaching Strategies in the 21st Century supports new educators to transition into their roles with confidence, while laying the foundations for a reflective, adaptive and student-centred practice.

“My work in assessment has always reminded me that teaching is not just about what teachers do, but about how students experience learning,” says Dr Rozi. “A strategy is only powerful when it helps teachers notice student thinking, respond to different needs, and create opportunities for all learners to show what they know and can do. That is the kind of practical, responsive teaching this book supports.”

The book – Teaching Strategies in the 21st Century: Where to Now?, by Loretta Bowshall-Freeman, Rozi Binte Rahmat and Michael Colbung (published by Cambridge University Press) – is available as an eBook from 16 July, with hardcopy versions available from 30 July.

---

Why Is Harm Reduction Misunderstood on College Campuses?

A new study found that students and staff involved with collegiate recovery programs held very different definitions and perceptions of harm reduction and its role in these programs, suggesting opportunities to reframe this public health approach in collegiate settings in a way that builds common ground and meets students’ varying substance use needs and recovery goals.

As collegiate recovery programs (CRPs) continue to expand on college campuses across the United States, so too does the opportunity to incorporate approaches supportive of harm reduction into these programs in order to provide vital, evidence-based support to students navigating diverse recovery journeys and goals. But a lack of understanding of what harm reduction actually means has led to differing perspectives about this approach and how—or whether—it should be integrated into CRPs, according to a new study led by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) researchers. 

As it relates to drug use, harm reduction is a public health approach that focuses on keeping people who use drugs safe and alive even if they continue to use drugs. It largely gained traction during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the US, in the form of services such as syringe needle exchange programs and bleach kits to combat the spread of HIV. Emphasizing the prevention of negative consequences associated with drug use rather than the prevention of substance use, harm reduction has expanded over the years to include interventions such as naloxone distribution kits and fentanyl test strips, as well as broader ideological commitments to treat people who use drugs with compassion and respect, recognizing that not everyone is ready or able to quit. 

But more than 40 years later, there is still no universally accepted definition of this public health approach. Published in the journal Emerging Adulthood, the new study found that this ambiguity led to five varying definitions of harm reduction among CRP program directors, administrators, staff, and students—categorized as traditional, alternative pathway, preventative, humanistic, and skeptical, and these varying conceptualizations shaped the participants’ perspectives on the possibilities and challenges of integrating harm reduction into CRPs. 

“Harm reduction has evolved from its origins in HIV prevention to encompass overdose prevention, behavioral change, public health, and social justice, so different groups emphasize different aspects,” says study senior author Dr. Noel Vest, assistant professor of community health sciences at BUSPH. “Our study found that these differing definitions directly shaped whether stakeholders viewed harm reduction as compatible with CRPs. In many cases, disagreements were less about specific interventions and more about what people meant by the term ‘harm reduction.’”

While drug overdose deaths among young adults declined significantly for the third consecutive year in 2025 (along with national rates), drug overdoses remain a leading cause of death among young people, and data also suggest that two-thirds of adults with opioid use disorder begin using drugs before age 25. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s recent funding cuts to clean needle programs threaten to stymie the progress that has been made. Alternative harm reduction services in collegiate settings could offset this loss among recovering students, and understanding how people involved with or influential over CRPs perceive these services can inform how CRPs can continue to evolve and expand to meet students’ needs—without increasing drug use or crime.

“There is evidence to support the idea that harm reduction strategies, such as naloxone and fentanyl test strip distribution, are effective approaches to achieving intended public health outcomes,” says corresponding author Ms. Isabel Redman, research project coordinator in the Department of Community Health Sciences and an incoming doctoral student at BUSPH, who co-lead the study with Ms. Erin Major, PhD student in health services research at BUSPH. “But different major organizations maintain their own official definitions of harm reduction, and these varying definitions among CRP staff and students reflect these broader perspectives.”

For the study, the BUSPH team examined perspectives on harm reduction in 60 interviews in fall 2023 with 8 program directors, 4 administrators, 33 students, and 15 staff members across 5 CRPs in the US.

Among the definitions/conceptualizations identified:

• The traditional conceptualization was deeply rooted in harm reduction’s early HIV/AIDS advocacy and viewed it as a means for preventing overdoses, disease spread, and other negative population-level outcomes—and as a separate path that could lead towards eventual recovery. This group also believed clean needle programs would present ethical concerns that would contradict the structure of CRPs, which tend to be focused on abstinence. 
• The alternative pathway conceptualization—the most commonly held view among the participants—viewed harm reduction as a way for people to reduce substance use, but not necessarily with the goal to quit, and believed that harm reduction services and spaces could be offered separately from abstinence-based recovery services. 
• The preventative conceptualization defined harm reduction as necessary changes to substance use culture and environment around individuals that would prevent people engaging in excessive drug use or prevent them from relapsing (such as educational outreach and coaching, or “sober-curious” or substance-free spaces).
• The humanistic conceptualization framed harm reduction as a human rights-based movement and ideology that promotes the belief that all people should be treated with dignity and respect—and without stigma—and emphasized that the voices of those with lived experience with drug use should help inform harm reduction strategies. 
• The skeptical conceptualization—a view only held personally by two student participants—believed that harm reduction would enable people to continue using while claiming to be in recovery and would be a barrier to abstinence-based recovery.

Several overlapping themes and considerations emerged from these five perspectives of harm reduction and its potential role in CRPs, including space on campuses for both abstinence-only and safe/reduced drug use, as well as overdose prevention education and systems-level changes to promote compassionate treatment towards people who use drugs. These overlapping viewpoints signal potential opportunities to create a harm reduction approach that blends multiple perspectives and goals, and places harm reduction on a spectrum, says Ms. Redman.

“Some participants also held multiple viewpoints on harm reduction simultaneously, suggesting that these varying perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” she says. “Some participants also described that their views on harm reduction changed over time, indicating that beliefs on harm reduction are not stagnant.”

A reframing of harm reduction should emphasize education and awareness of this approach to students—ideally in adolescence before they reach college, Dr. Vest says, or at least early in their college experience, such as in new student orientations. 

“Public health has long embraced harm reduction through evidence-based strategies like seat belts, sunscreen, and condoms—interventions that reduce risk without requiring people to eliminate the underlying behavior,” says Dr. Vest. “Brief educational interventions that clarify what harm reduction is, and perhaps more importantly what it is not, could help reduce misconceptions and build common ground. Rather than focusing on narrow concepts, conversations should center on shared goals like reducing overdose, fostering peer support, supporting student well-being, and helping students move toward healthier lives.”

Future research should focus on developing and testing educational interventions that improve understanding of harm reduction among collegiate recovery stakeholders. Establishing a shared understanding of harm reduction may reduce misconceptions and support more informed decision-making about its role within collegiate recovery. The researchers also note that this study should be repeated among other populations, including the general public, to see if similar misconceptions about harm reduction arise. 

“Continuing the conversation, with a focus on common purpose, will help us to better understand the different dimensions of harm reduction and how it may be operationalized to improve student health,” Ms. Redman says.

Journal

Emerging Adulthood

DOI

10.1177/21676968261456379 

College students who spend more time online are more likely to report suicidal thoughts

 In the digital age, adolescents and young adults increasingly form social connections through online spaces, including social media, gaming and messaging platforms, which serve as venues for identity exploration, peer connection and emotional validation. However, these spaces also create new vulnerabilities, including upward social comparison, exclusion and online harassment that can undermine mental health, including depression and suicidality.

 

While most research has been focused on adolescents, a new study has found that college students who spend more time online (including social media use, gaming, etc.) and those who experience online harassment, are more likely to report suicidal thoughts. It also showed that these patterns were not the same across gender groups. In particular, cisgender men showed the strongest link between time spent online and suicidal thoughts, while online harassment was linked to higher risk across all gender groups. This is one of the few studies to look at both time online and harmful online experiences together, while paying close attention to gender differences.

 

“As with much of the literature on digital use and mental health, most research has focused on adolescents, leaving college-aged young adults underrepresented. In addition, few large-scale studies have examined how time online and experiences relate to mental health across gender identities, underscoring the need for gender-stratified research in diverse, multisite college samples—our study addresses these gaps,” explains corresponding author Seungbin Oh, PhD, LPC, NCC, assistant professor of psychiatry at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine.

 

The researchers analyzed data from a large national survey called the Healthy Minds Study, which asks college students about their mental health and daily experiences. They looked at answers from more than 46,000 students who were asked how much time they spent in online spaces outside of school or work. They then examined whether students who spent more time online, or who reported being harassed online, were more likely to say they had seriously thought about suicide in the past year. The researchers also looked at whether these patterns differed for cisgender men, cisgender women, and transgender and gender nonconforming students, while taking into account other important factors such as depression, sleep and financial stress.

 

“One especially important finding was that the link between time spent online and suicidal thoughts was strongest among cisgender men, which differs from much of the earlier research that has focused more heavily on girls and young women as being especially vulnerable to digital harms. We may be overlooking an important mental health risk pattern among young men and that their digital experiences deserve much more public and clinical attention,” adds Oh.

 

According to the researchers, providers who work with college students and young adults should ask not only about depression and anxiety, but also about online life, including social media use, gaming habits, online harassment and digital stress. “These questions may help identify students who are struggling but who may not bring up these experiences on their own. The findings also highlight the need to pay greater attention to young men’s mental health, especially because they are often less likely to seek help and may show distress in ways that are easier to miss,” says Oh.

 

These findings appear online in the American Journal of Public Health.

Adolescent social media restrictions may reduce some harms while shifting others

Amrit Kaur Purba and colleagues argue that social media restrictions operate within a wider system of adolescents, families, schools, governments, and commercial actors - and therefore should be treated as complex systems interventions rather than isolated behavioural policies.

Without this broader approach, they warn that “governments risk introducing highly visible policies that are poorly understood and may cause unintended harm while leaving root causes unchanged.”

They outline how lessons from other commercial determinants of health such as the tobacco and alcohol industries can help predict how social media companies may adapt politically, scientifically, technologically, and economically after regulation.

For example, companies may try to redefine what counts as “social media” so that it falls outside new regulations, invest more in related or less regulated spaces, and shape policy through lobbying, public messaging, research funding, and marketing.

Adolescents themselves may also adapt by moving to more private or harder to monitor spaces, such as encrypted messaging apps or AI based chat systems.

The authors also note that restrictions may not affect all young people in the same way, suggesting that those with supportive families, strong digital skills, access to high quality educational resources, and opportunities for safe offline activities may benefit more than those facing isolation, unsafe environments, or limited support.

One young person’s perspective, who is also an author on the paper, seems to support this view. While acknowledging that social media can be both helpful and harmful, they describe it as “a place where friendships are made, where people can find communities, express themselves, learn new things, and sometimes a place to escape difficult situations.”

They add: “I have had friends reach out to me on social media about things they aren’t comfortable talking to family members about, and I have done the same. Without social media, what could we have done?”

The authors suggest using systems mapping to anticipate these effects and design more balanced, evidence informed approaches.

While this approach cannot predict exactly what will happen, it helps show how different parts of a system connect, how these parts may respond to change, and where effects may feedback on one another, they write.

As such, they recommend that evaluations move beyond standalone measures like screen time or short term changes in mental health to capture wider factors such as school engagement, social connections, industry and platform responses, and longer term effects.

And they conclude that taking this broader view need not delay action. Instead, “it will help ensure policies are balanced, flexible, evidence informed, and improve over time.”

---

Journal

The BMJ

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2026-100084 

How academic freedom is threatened – and how resilience of research can be strengthened

 

In Germany, too, academic freedom and the autonomy of research must be defended against increasing hostility and attacks. Meeting this challenge is first and foremost the responsibility of the research ecosystem itself and of everyone working within it. Researchers and research organisations in particular can and should actively strengthen the resilience of research by identifying their own vulnerabilities, making determined use of the possibilities available to them and working together with other stakeholders in the areas of politics, business and society at large.

 

These are the central arguments of a position paper recently published by a DFG Senate working group. Against the backdrop of current developments and incidents in Germany and numerous other countries, the paper describes threats to academic freedom and outlines options for protecting and strengthening it.

 

The paper is the second publication issued by the working group, which comprises members of the DFG Senate and Executive Committee and is chaired by Vice Presidents Professor Dr. Britta Siegmund and Professor Dr. Johannes Grave. The group was established last year to develop proposals aimed at enhancing the resilience of academia and the research ecosystem across multiple domains. In its first statement, published in March 2026, it presented “Recommendations on the Resilience of Research Data Infrastructures”.

 

The new “Position Paper on Strengthening the Academic Freedom and Resilience of Research” was prepared over recent months by the working group in consultation with both German and international experts from academia, business and society. The paper was most recently presented to and discussed by the DFG’s statutory bodies in the course of the annual meeting of Germany's largest research funding organisation and central self-governing organisation for science and the humanities at the end of June.

 

A wide range of threats

 

The paper begins by outlining in concise form the ways in which academic freedom  is coming under increasing pressure, in particular by identifying the actors involved and their motives. Attacks may target individual researchers and their views, as has already frequently been the case, as well as specific fields of research and research institutions. There are also attempts to discredit academic research or attribute malicious intentions to it.

More far-reaching are attacks that seek to weaken public funding for research, gain control over a research ecosystem or, in the context of geopolitical crises and wars, threaten a national research system as a whole.

 

In each case, the paper offers examples, including developments in the United States and Hungary and the war in Ukraine, while also citing instances of occurrences in Germany, such as the hostility directed at virologists during the COVID-19 pandemic and the AfD’s “government programme” for the forthcoming state election in Saxony-Anhalt.

 

Vulnerabilities and protection

 

In the second part of the paper, the authors argue that such attacks are sometimes facilitated by potential or existing vulnerabilities inherent in the conduct of research and within the research ecosystem itself. For example, the paper notes that opponents are afforded additional opportunities for attack when the impression is created that the research community itself is restricting academic freedom through self-censorship or ”cancel culture”. The paper further contends that research is particularly vulnerable to attack when it is perceived as lacking effective quality assurance and self-regulation, or when the research community is viewed as an insular elite retreating into a fortress mentality. The paper also argues that the research ecosystem is potentially weakened as a result of overly optimistic assumptions and unrealistic expectations about the rationality of its opponents, a lack of solidarity within the research community, and the misleading notion that the research ecosystem is apolitical and therefore need not defend itself.

 

In addition, the paper identifies specific vulnerabilities within the German research ecosystem, including individual risks arising from dependency relationships and inappropriately short-term employment contracts.

 

The third section explores the institutional and legal safeguards that protect academic freedom despite the wide range of challenges it faces. Chief among these is the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of research and teaching, enshrined as a fundamental right in Germany's Basic Law.

 

The paper also emphasises that research in Germany is firmly embedded in both the economy and society. Its contribution to economic and social development, together with the high level of public trust it enjoys, means that attacks on academic freedom are likely to meet resistance far beyond academia.

 

Where action is possible – and needed

 

Building on this analysis, the paper outlines a range of options for strengthening resilience through preventive action. These include fostering close and trusting cooperation among researchers and research organisations, as well as building alliances with business and civil society. In order to improve preparedness, the authors also call for expanded research into the programmes and strategies of those who oppose academic freedom and, more broadly, into the relationship between academia, politics and society.

 

In addition, high standards of academic self-governance and self-regulation must be continuously reinforced and safeguarded.

The paper further argues that the research community must engage in more critical self-reflection, not least to develop a clearer understanding of the distinctions between research-based knowledge and other forms of knowledge, as well as between scientific findings and opinion. It likewise calls for authentic science communication that conveys not only scientific achievements but also the provisional nature of knowledge, the limits of current understanding, and the uncertainties, setbacks and iterative character of the research process. At the institutional level, the authors advocate strengthening procedures, statutes and decision-making processes to make them more resilient to misuse, identifying unanimity requirements as one example of institutional vulnerability. Finally, the paper argues that preventive action is also required to enhance research security and safeguard research infrastructures.

 

Like the paper itself, these recommendations are addressed primarily to the research ecosystem and those working within it. At the same time, however, the authors identify a wider circle of actors with whom collaborative action is required to safeguard academic freedom and strengthen the resilience of the research ecosystem. These include policymakers, the federal and state ministries responsible for research, and the federal–state bodies responsible for coordinating research policy. Their involvement is considered particularly important in reducing the individual uncertainties and risks faced by researchers, as well as in shielding research from political interference exercised through financial pressure.

 

In the event of specific attacks on academic freedom, the working group further recommends that the research community and its institutions consider public forms of protest where appropriate. It also emphasises the importance of practical solidarity and mutual support at both the individual and institutional levels, for example through a ”collective duty of mutual assistance”. Finally, it notes that the constitutional protection of academic freedom provides a basis for legal action where judicial remedies offer an effective response.

 

 

Further Information

 

The full text of the Position Paper on Strengthening the Academic Freedom and Resilience of Research: https://zenodo.org/records/21353471

 

Further information and material on the topic of the resilience of research: https://zenodo.org/records/21353471

Scrolling for Study Helps, Scrolling for Fun Hurts: Students’ Social Media Use and Wellbeing

A recent study on nursing students’ social media usage suggests that social media use can affect wellbeing, depending on the purpose.

The study was led by Dr. Mohamed Goda Elbqry, with co-authors Dr. Fatma Mohamed Elmansy, Dr. Noha Mohammed Ibrahim, Dr. Saddam Ahmed Al‑Ahdal, and Dr. Fatima S. O. Ashmieg, from Qassim University (Saudi Arabia) and Suez Canal University (Egypt). The team published their findings in The Open Nursing Journal (Bentham Open).

---

Purpose of using Social Media

Social media is woven into the daily lives of university students, but its impact depends on how it is used. A nursing student who turns to platforms for lecture notes, assignment collaboration, or clinical case discussions engages in a fundamentally different practice than one who spends hours on entertainment feeds or constant social messaging. A new study published in The Open Nursing Journal asked a critical question: Does the purpose behind social media use determine whether it supports or undermines students’ life satisfaction?

---

The Study
 
Researchers surveyed 298 undergraduate nursing internship students (128 males, 170 females; average age just over 21) at Al‑Razi University, Sanaa, Yemen, between April and August 2025. Using four validated questionnaires, the team measured academic, social, and entertainment use of social media, levels of addiction, and overall life satisfaction. The study followed STROBE guidelines for observational research, with structural equation modelling applied to map relationships among variables.

---

Key Findings

The results revealed that academic use of social media, such as for coursework, exam preparation, or peer learning, was associated with higher life satisfaction and lower risk of addiction. In contrast, entertainment-driven use emerged as the strongest predictor of addictive behaviour, with a path coefficient more than three times larger than social use. Social media addiction itself was independently linked to lower life satisfaction and partially mediated the effects of all three types of use. The indirect negative effect of entertainment use on life satisfaction (β = -0.235) was considerably stronger than that of social use (β = -0.078), while academic use showed a modest positive indirect effect (β = 0.069).

---

Implications for Universities and Students

The findings highlight that not all social media time is equal. Purposeful academic engagement enhances wellbeing, while compulsive recreational use erodes it. Universities should consider implementing digital wellness programmes that help students distinguish between academic and recreational use, alongside policies that restrict non-academic platform access during study hours and counselling or peer support for students showing signs of addiction. Given nursing students’ high academic and clinical stress, such measures could meaningfully improve wellbeing. The authors note limitations, including the single-institution sample, reliance on self-reports, and cross-sectional design. Future longitudinal and multi-site studies are needed.

---

Read the published article here: https://bit.ly/4gYfD9i