Psychological experiences and consequences of classification and reclassification in competitive Para sport: a scoping review

Abstract

Abstract Background Classification determines eligibility and sport class in competitive Para sport, yet its psychological consequences have not been synthesised separately from the technical classification literature. This review mapped athlete experiences and psychological consequences associated with classification, reclassification, declassification, and related classification decisions. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI guidance and reported using PRISMA-ScR. Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus were searched from inception to 26 July 2026; PubMed/MEDLINE, Academic Search Ultimate, and OpenDissertations were searched from inception to 27 July 2026. Two reviewers independently completed title-and-abstract and full-text screening. Data were charted descriptively and synthesised using inductive thematic synthesis. Formal critical appraisal was not undertaken because the review was designed to map a heterogeneous evidence base rather than estimate effects or grade certainty. Results The searches identified 2,658 records; 1,289 remained after duplicate removal. Twenty-four reports were sought for full-text retrieval, 22 were assessed, and 17 studies were included. The evidence comprised 10 primarily qualitative studies, four quantitative survey or cross-sectional studies, one mixed-methods study, and two participatory or multi-method evaluations. Seven themes were identified: process knowledge and communication; fairness, trust, and system integrity; uncertainty, control, and emotional consequences; identity, belonging, dignity, and social relations; satisfaction, acceptance, and perceived utility; motivation, self-efficacy, behavioural responses, and performance; and access, burden, and participation. The most disruptive accounts were reported when decisions were poorly explained, perceived as inconsistent, or associated with unexpected reclassification or loss of eligibility. Prospective and longitudinal evidence was scarce, and no included study prospectively evaluated a classification-specific support strategy. Conclusions Classification was reported as both a technical assessment and an organisational and interpersonal process. Across the mapped evidence, transparent information, respectful communication, sport-specific procedures, credible review routes, and attention to access and transition were associated with trust, acceptance, and well-being. Classification-specific education, support, and referral approaches should be regarded as evidence-informed priorities for prospective evaluation, particularly around reclassification, ‘Not Eligible’ decisions, protest, appeal, and career transition.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2026 · DOI ↗