Quick Wins: Qualitative analysis of coach role

This post answers whether field interviews in Senegal show coaches filling formal-care gaps and how to convert 16 interviews into program-ready outputs using an AI workflow. The Senegal study (June 26, 2026) finds coaches frequently provide first aid, return-to-play decisions, and psychosocial support because formal care is often inaccessible, and targeted coach upskilling is a pragmatic intervention.

• Coaches act as clinicians, case managers, and psychosocial supports where formal systems are limited (Senegal, June 26, 2026).
• Study method: semi-structured interviews, grounded theory, n=16 stakeholders.
• Immediate program implication: train and support coaches with culturally adapted, low-cost designs.

The fast take is that coaches fill healthcare and support roles where formal care is fragmented, and qualitative, context-first analysis guides pragmatic interventions. The original study summary is on BMJ Blogs: BMJ Blogs.

• Study design: semi-structured interviews, grounded theory analysis.
• Core problem: evidence from well-resourced settings does not map to low-resource realities.
• Immediate implication: upskilling coaches is a high-leverage intervention.

The table below summarises the study date, sample, method, top finding, and program implication.

The plain-English answer is that the study interviewed 16 stakeholders in elite sport in Senegal and used grounded theory to surface how injury prevention and management operate in that context. The study found that limited funding, fragmented healthcare access, and cultural norms, including pain normalisation, use of traditional medicine, and stigma on mental health, push the system toward reactive care.

The study found that coaches, because they are present and trusted, regularly fill gaps by providing first aid, deciding when athletes return to play, advising on traditional remedies, and sometimes handling social and financial problems. The study also highlighted that ACL injuries were emphasised as potentially career-ending in this setting.

• Design note: the study emphasises contextual adaptation over wholesale transfer of interventions from high-income settings.
• Ethics note: this is research-focused, non-diagnostic material; any clinical steps should follow local protocols and professional guidelines.

The one-sentence answer for the workflow is: follow seven pragmatic steps to convert interviews into actionable program items within two weeks.

• 1) Collect and upload transcripts and audio, labelled by role, gender, and discipline.
• 2) Run Evidano transcription and a custom dictionary pass to normalise local terms.
• 3) Auto-generate an initial codebook and review it with two to three domain experts.
• 4) Apply AI-assisted coding across all transcripts and check inter-coder consistency.
• 5) Run cross-segment frequency and co-occurrence analyses to prioritise themes such as coach responsibilities and access barriers.
• 6) Extract top representative quotes and build a one-page stakeholder brief with visuals.
• 7) Iterate by using the platform chat to draft training modules for coaches and a pilot evaluation plan.

The FAQ answers common operational and methodological questions using only the study details and platform features described here.

The wrap-up answer is that when formal systems are limited, coaches become the de facto care system, so researchers and implementers should design context-first interventions and measure adoption with qualitative methods that preserve nuance. Start a pilot by uploading 10 to 20 transcripts to Evidano and see thematic and cross-segment reports in hours rather than weeks. For a deeper demo or onboarding, Try Evidano for free.