Applied sport psychology in esports: A scoping review of intervention strategies

Abstract

The growing professionalization of esports has increased interest in psychological interventions to support player performance and well-being. However, the extent and nature of published intervention research remain unclear. A scoping review approach was selected due to the small, heterogeneous, and methodologically diverse evidence base, which precludes effectiveness synthesis. Therefore, this scoping review mapped how psychological interventions have been described, delivered, and evaluated in esports research, and identified gaps to inform future work. Guided by PRISMA-ScR, seven studies published between 2022 and 2025 were identified. Studies primarily involved players of League of Legends and Counter-Strike, with substantial variability in participant characteristics, intervention formats, and outcome measures. Interventions were delivered online and in person, including acceptance-based strategies, coping effectiveness training, arousal reappraisal, and team-focused workshops. Assessment approaches included self-report measures, practitioner reflections, and performance-related indicators. Findings highlight that intervention research in esports remains exploratory, with limited consistency in reporting and evaluation. For coaches and applied practitioners, this review clarifies which psychological strategies have been studied in esports to date, highlights important contextual considerations for intervention delivery, and underscores the need for context-sensitive implementation, transparent documentation, and ongoing evaluation when providing psychological support in esports environments.

Keywords

Communication competitive gaming digital performance environment mental skills wellbeing

Esports has evolved into a global industry featuring professional teams, high-stake competitions, and large audiences (e.g.,¹). According to Pedraza-Ramirez et al. (2020),² esports can be defined as an individual- or team-based activity involving organized or casual play of specific video games, featuring ranking systems and competitions at amateur, semi-professional, and professional levels. Esports’ rapid growth has increased the demands placed on players, coaches, and support staff.³ Although esports originates from gaming, media, and entertainment cultures,⁴ contemporary esports increasingly adopts sport-like structures, languages, and performance systems (e.g., training schedules, coaching staff, performance analysis), making it a relevant context for sport and coaching science research (e.g.,^5–7).

Success in esports is associated with confidence, sustained focus, and the ability to achieve flow states, while maintaining cognitive (e.g., strategic thinking) and motor performance (e.g., eye-hand coordination) under competitive pressure.^8–10 Esports shares key structural and performance features with elite sports, including organized training routines, coaching support, multidisciplinary performance teams, and high-stakes competition (e.g.,¹¹). These similarities justify applying principles from sport science and psychology to esports, including interdisciplinary psychological interventions informed by sport psychology, a discipline bridging these fields, to support performance, adaptation, and wellbeing in esports contexts (e.g.,⁵). Additionally, players face digital stressors such as technical disruptions (e.g., lag), prolonged screen-based engagement, and the need for sustained fine motor control (e.g., precise mouse movements, rapid key presses) (e.g.,¹²). In addition to competitive demands, esports players report challenges related to intensive training schedules, exposure to hostile or abusive communication during online play (often referred to as in-game toxicity), social media scrutiny, and balancing esports with personal life (e.g.,^13,14). Across competitive levels, research has documented elevated rates of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep disturbances,^15–17 highlighting the role of support systems in esports.

In response to these demands, esports organizations increasingly employ applied practitioners to support performance, wellbeing, and career sustainability (e.g.,^18,19). In traditional sports, such support is commonly delivered through sport psychology interventions, broadly referring to structured, theory-informed methods aimed at developing mental skills, optimizing performance, and supporting athletes’ well-being (e.g.,²⁰). These interventions often include psychological skills training, such as imagery, goal setting, cognitive-behavioral strategies, mindfulness, and stress-management training^21,22). They are grounded in established theoretical frameworks, including cognitive-behavioural approaches, stress-and-coping models, and self-determination theory, which emphasize different mechanisms for enhancing performance and wellbeing. Evidence from traditional sport indicates that such interventions can positively influence outcomes including performance, anxiety regulation, and confidence (e.g.,^23–25). However, comparable evidence in esports remains limited, highlighting the need to better understand how psychological interventions are currently conceptualized and reported in this context.

Sport psychology interventions encompass a wide range of domains, including cognitive-perceptual skills, attentional control, decision-making, and performance preparation, in addition to affective and coping-related processes. However, it remains unclear how comprehensively these domains have been examined in esports intervention research to date. Existing studies appear to focus primarily on affective and coping-related processes, highlighting the importance of systematically mapping the range of psychological intervention approaches described in esports.

In applied practice, psychological support may reflect diverse therapeutic and practitioner-oriented paradigms, including cognitive-behavioural, mindfulness-based, positive psychology, person-centred, and consultation-based approaches, reflecting the evolving scope and professional identity of applied sport psychology.²⁶ These paradigms differ in their underlying assumptions, mechanisms of change, and delivery structures. Intervention characteristics may also vary substantially in terms of session frequency, duration, overall length, and whether support is delivered individually or in team settings. Such variability can influence how interventions are defined, implemented, and interpreted. In emerging fields such as esports, where applied practice and research are still developing, distinctions between structured interventions, practitioner-informed support, and case-based reflections may not always be clearly delineated. Systematically mapping how interventions have been theoretically grounded, operationalized, and described is therefore essential to support transparent interpretation and inform future research and applied practice, as scoping reviews are specifically suited to identifying conceptual, methodological, and evidence gaps within emerging fields.²⁷

Despite the growing presence of sport psychology practitioners in esports, the extent to which psychological interventions have been systematically described and operationalized in esports research remains unclear (e.g.,^19,28). Esports differs from traditional sport in several important respects, including its digital performance environment, training modalities, and organizational structures (e.g.,^13,14), which may influence how psychological support is delivered and studied. Rather than assuming that existing approaches require modification, it is first necessary to establish how interventions have been conceptualized and reported in esports research to date. Doing so provides a foundation for building a transparent and context-sensitive evidence base to support applied practice and guide future research (e.g.,⁵). This is particularly relevant for coaches and support staff, who increasingly incorporate psychological strategies into their work but may lack clear guidance regarding how such interventions have been implemented, described, and studied within esports settings. Included studies span controlled laboratory-based manipulations and practitioner-delivered applied programs. While these approaches differ in ecological validity, implementation structure, and aims, both are relevant for understanding how psychological interventions operate in esports contexts. Considering this full range aligns with the purpose of a scoping review, which seeks to comprehensively map intervention types, characteristics, and reporting practices rather than evaluate effectiveness. A clearer understanding of which populations have been studied, what types of interventions have been implemented, how these interventions have been described in relation to esports contexts, and where key evidence gaps remain is therefore needed. Accordingly, the purpose of this scoping review is to map and synthesize peer-reviewed research that has described or evaluated sport psychology interventions in esports. Specifically, this review aims to provide an overview of how interventions have been operationalized and reported in esports research, rather than to assess their effectiveness or recommend best practices. By charting available evidence and identifying gaps in reporting and methodology, this review seeks to inform future research and support reflective practice among applied practitioners and coaches working in esports environments. This scoping review addresses the following research questions: 1) What populations and participant characteristics have been examined in esports intervention research?; 2) What psychological intervention strategies have been described or implemented in esports studies?; 3) How have intervention delivery and outcomes been assessed and reported?; 4) What gaps, limitations, and methodological issues characterize the current esports intervention literature?

Method

Review protocol

The study and protocol were pre-registered through the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/4j53a/?view_only=5e1c323faa0449628b96501f5bbef74d. The literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; ²⁹). Consistent with prior reviews in esports (e.g.,¹³), the search focused on specific competitive video games. This approach aimed to address ongoing debates regarding which games qualify as esports (e.g.,²). A list of included titles is provided in the online supplementary material: https://osf.io/w64yu?view_only=5e1c323faa0449628b96501f5bbef74d.

Eligibility criteria were defined using the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework. Population criteria limited inclusion to studies involving esports players, coaches, or other competitive stakeholders actively engaged in organized esports environments. Concept criteria focused on psychological interventions, operationally defined as structured, intentional psychological activities described by the study authors as aiming to influence performance, well-being, or psychosocial functioning in esports contexts (e.g.,^21,22). Context criteria required that interventions were implemented within competitive gaming settings across any esport title. While the review was primarily focused on interventions targeting players, the limited number of available studies made it necessary to also include other stakeholders. This included coaches, support staff, and other personnel to ensure relevant interventions work beyond player-focused studies was not excluded. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English or German were included. Studies were excluded if participants presented with primary psychological or physiological health conditions (e.g., substance dependence, cardiac illness) that would influence responses to psychological interventions, or if interventions targeted clinical treatment rather than performance or well-being in esports contexts. Consistent with the aims of a scoping review, this study did not seek to evaluate intervention effectiveness, compare intervention approaches, or make best-practice recommendations, but instead focused on mapping how psychological interventions have been described and studied in esports research.

Search strategy

Search parameters were defined using common esports-related terms (e.g.,^30,31) and intervention-related terms identified in prior studies (e.g.,³²). An initial literature review across multiple databases helped refine relevant search terms and select appropriate platforms for the review. The search, conducted on January 29, 2025, included Web of Science, PubMED and EBSCOhost (APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, SocINDEX with full text, SPORTDiscus) with no publication date restrictions. Keywords for the search were: (esport* OR “e-sport*” OR “electronic sport*” OR “competitive gaming” OR “online gam*” OR “first person shooter” OR “real time strategy”) AND (Interven* OR Promot* OR Induc* OR Mediat* OR Moderat* OR Effect* OR Train* OR Facilitat* OR performance) AND psychol*. Given the inconsistent use of the term “intervention” in esports research, the search strategy intentionally included broader training- and performance-related terms to maximize sensitivity, with final inclusion determined during full-text screening. To exclude studies outside the study's scope, such as those focusing on gambling, the following exclusion terms were applied: (esporte OR esportiva OR esportivo OR gamma* OR gambl* OR addiction). No field tags, filters, or publication date limits were applied (see supplementary material). An updated search across all databases using the same search string was conducted on July 8, 2025, covering publication between January 30 and the search date. A second updated search using the same strategy was performed on December 5, 2025, during manuscript revision. Additional strategies included reference list screening, citation searching, and hand searching. While studies not published in peer-reviewed journals were excluded, gray literature was reviewed to provide context and support discussion of the mapped evidence. Screening of all updated search records did not identify any additional studies meeting the eligibility criteria.

Selection process

All search results (titles and abstracts) were uploaded to Mendeley (Version 2.132.1) for duplicate removal. Duplicates were resolved using Mendeley's detection features and manually verified by the first author. To minimize bias, two reviewers (Authors 1 and 2) independently screened the titles and abstracts. Author 1 has specific expertise in sport psychology in esports, while Author 2 has general expertise in sport psychology. This combination ensured a thorough and balanced review. The initial screening yielded an inter-rater agreement of 99%, indicating excellent consistency. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were then retrieved and assessed in detail, resulting in an inter-rater agreement of 85%, reflecting substantial agreement.³³ Discrepancies were resolved through discussion to reach consensus.

Data collection and synthesis

Data from included studies were extracted descriptively using a standardized form. Information collected included study characteristics (e.g., author, year), participant detail (e.g., age, gender, experience), study design and methodology (e.g., research aim, study design), and intervention characteristics relevant to the research questions, including intervention type, theoretical orientation where reported, and delivery characteristics (e.g., format, session frequency, duration, and intervention length). Extracted data were organized into a table, verified by author 5. Descriptive analyses, such as reporting means and standard deviations, were conducted for mapping purposes only. Two authors (Author 1 and 2) independently reviewed the extracted data, discussed patterns, and grouped intervention strategies descriptively to reflect the diversity of approaches in esports sport psychology. This grouping was guided by existing sport psychology literature (e.g.,³⁴) and aimed to provide an overview of the evidence and reporting practices rather than to assess effectiveness or evaluate applied practice or practitioner competence.

Methodological assessment

To provide an overview of study characteristics, two reviewers independently assessed the methodological features of each study using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018.³⁵ Studies were classified according to design (i.e., qualitative, quantitative randomized controlled trial, quantitative non-randomized, quantitative descriptive, or mixed methods) and evaluated using the MMAT criteria. Screening questions were deemed unnecessary, as all included studies were empirical. Consistent with the scoping review approach, studies were not excluded based on methodological quality. Discrepancies in assessment were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached (interrater agreement k = .89; ³³). Findings from the MMAT were used descriptively to inform the mapping of evidence and to highlight methodological gaps in esports sport psychology research, including incomplete reporting of intervention procedures, limited detail on participant context, and inconsistent outcome reporting. The assessment is provided in the online supplementary material. Overall, studies met most MMAT criteria, indicating generally adequate methodological quality. Where criteria were not met, this primarily related to reporting or design features rather than fundamental flaws in study conduct. These features were considered in the interpretation of findings and informed the identification of evidence gaps reported in the results and discussion. The full assessment is provided in the online supplementary material.

Results

This section first reports study selection and sample characteristics, followed by an overview of intervention strategies, delivery formats, and assessment approaches. Findings are presented descriptively to reflect how psychological interventions have been operationalized, delivered, and reported in esports research.

Study selection

As illustrated in Figure 1, the database search yielded 3209 articles. After removing 969 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 2240 articles were screened. Of these, a total of 2187 records were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria. For instance, most of these records did not describe or operationalize psychological interventions in an esports context. Fifty-three full texts were assessed for eligibility, of which 47 were excluded, primarily because they reported descriptive, reflective, or case-based accounts of applied practice without systemic description of intervention content or delivery (k = 43) or did not involve esports populations (k = 4). Additional searches, including citation tracking (k = 117) and reference list screening (k = 561), yielded 678 further records, from which one additional article met the inclusion criteria. In total, seven articles were included in the review.

Figure 1.

Flowchart illustrating the study selection process.

Study populations

The total sample size across studies ranged from 5 to 300 participants, totaling 381 individuals (M = 54.43; SD = 109.23). As shown in Table 1, participants were predominantly male (n = 376; 98.69%), with only five female participants included (1.31%). Female players were included only in Sharpe et al. (2024; ³⁶), comprising 11.36% of their sample.

Table 1.

Study characteristic table.

First author	Year	Participants					Esports	Research question/Aim	Intervention	Findings
First author	Year	N	Sex (♂/♀)	Age	Experience	Nationality	Esports	Research question/Aim	Intervention	Findings
Agrawal	2024	5	5/0	20–30 years	2–10 years competitive LoL experience	NR	LoL	To explore the experiences and cultural reflections of a trainee sport and exercise psychologist within a multicultural professional esports team.	Two workshops: (1) goal-setting and effective training practices (team and individual), and (2) a personal-disclosure mutual-sharing session to enhance cohesion.	Participants reported improved feedback processes, though challenges in team dynamics persisted.
Behnke	2024	300	300/0	21.95 (2.29)	9.13 (5.22) years; 2225.69 h (1980.55)	NR	CS:GO	To test the causal effect of synergistic mindsets and examine the mechanisms through which these effects operate.	Synergistic mindsets intervention	The intervention did not significantly improve challenge responses or performance outcomes compared to the control group.
Brain	2024	5	5/0	NR	Overwatch national team	NR	Overwatch	To outline the unique experiences of two trainee sport and exercise psychologists working with a national Overwatch esports team during World Cup preparation.	Four-week intervention combining ACT and a shared-values approach. Included team sessions to identify and prioritize shared goals/values, followed by emotion regulation training from an ACT perspective and individual sessions addressing personal concerns and performance under pressure.	Players valued safe space for sharing and managing pressure; challenges included cultural nuances (e.g., camera-off norm), value misalignment between staff and practitioners, and difficulties in rapport building without visual cues. Key takeaways emphasized flexibility, cultural humility, and client-centered approaches in esports settings.
Poulus	2023	5	5/0	20.40 (1.52)	LoL Circuit Oceania	AUS	LoL	To develop and pilot esports-adapted Coping Effectiveness Training, and to measure its impact on coping effectiveness, subjective performance, mental health, and resilience.	Esports-adapted Coping Effectiveness Training, delivered through a 2-h online workshop and a 45-min follow-up session.	Perceived coping effectiveness and subjective performance increased. No significant changes were observed in psychological distress, wellbeing, or resilience.
Swettenham	2022	5	5/0	17–21 (NR)	UK League Championship team	NR	LoL	To develop team cohesion by increasing players’ self- and other-awareness through mutual sharing of strength profiles, and to support players in managing uncomfortable thoughts and emotions under pressure.	Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based intervention comprising five workshops over four weeks, supplemented with individual one-to-one sessions.	Players reported enhanced teamplay, cohesion, and empathy, as well as feeling safer to share ideas. They noted support from teammates in managing performance anxiety and improved self-awareness. Coaches observed increased understanding of team dynamics, shared language, and individual player needs.
Sharpe	2024	44	39/5	21.34 (3.85)	2082.16 h (838.79) University level	NR	CS:GO	To explore strategies for altering athletes’ perceptions of arousal in a pressurized esports environment.	Arousal reappraisal instructions	Arousal reappraisal improved esports performance (completion time, shooting accuracy), promoted a stress-is-enhancing mindset, reduced cognitive and somatic anxiety, and supported challenge appraisals.
Sharpe	2025	17	17/0	21.10 (2.38)	5.80 years (1.64); 3.50 (1.57) in FPS; M_hours = 796.60 (374.45), university-level competition	Western European countries	CS:GO	To investigate the combined effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and arousal reappraisal on performance, anxiety, and stress appraisal in esports athletes.	Arousal reappraisal instruction	Arousal reappraisal reduced cognitive anxiety and promoted challenge appraisals. These effects were more pronounced when combined with anodal tDCS, resulting in greater performance improvements.

Note. NR = not reported; AUS = Australian; LoL = League of Legends; CS:GO = Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

Age reporting varied across studies. Two studies reported age ranged only,^37,38 and one study did not report age.³⁹ Among the four studies reporting both mean age and standard deviation, the pooled mean age was 21.20 years (pooled SD = 2.51). Six of the seven studies did not specify participant nationality. Poulus et al. (2023; ⁴⁰) examined Australian players, Sharpe et al. (2025; ⁴¹) reported participants from Western European countries, and Behnke et al. (2024; ⁴²) required participants to be Polish-speaking.

Four studies focused on League of Legends players^37–40 and three on Counter-Strike: Global Offensive players.^36,41,42 Four studies included participants competing at performance levels, such as League of Legends Circuit Oceania players⁴⁰ and European esports league competitors.³⁷ Two studies examined university-level CS:GO players,^36,41 while one study included CS:GO players with varying levels of prior competition experience, ranging from no prior competition to international-level participation.⁴² The full sample was retained in reporting, as the intervention was delivered within an esports context and addressed performance-relevant psychological processes.

Study characteristics

Of the seven included studies, three consisted of practitioner reflections or case reports with individual League of Legends teams.^37–39 Four interventions were delivered online,^37–40 with Discord being the most frequently reported platform for communication.^38–40 Three studies were conducted in a laboratory setting.^36,41,42

Intervention delivery characteristics varied substantially across studies. Interventions ranged from single-session laboratory-based manipulations to multi-session psychological support programs delivered over several weeks. Delivery formats included individual and team-based approaches, as well as online and laboratory settings. However, reporting of intervention dosage (e.g., session frequency, duration, and overall intervention length) was inconsistent across studies. The included studies therefore represented a range of evidence types, including experimental interventions, structured applied programs, and practitioner-informed case reports.

Interventions strategies and outcomes

The included studies described a range of psychological interventions in esports, primarily targeting communication, stress appraisal, coping, team processes, and psychological skills. Across studies, interventions addressed both performance-relevant processes (e.g., arousal regulation, communication focus) and broader well-being-related processes (e.g., coping, psychological safety), although the emphasis varied across intervention type and study design.

Communication interventions

One study described interventions focusing on communication within esports teams. Agrawal et al. (2024;³⁷) reported on psychoeducational workshops incorporating goal-setting, feedback strategies, and Personal Disclosure Mutual Sharing (PDMS) to support empathy, trust, and team identity. The study primarily reported practitioner reflections and descriptive observations regarding team engagement, communication, and post-game reflection.

Mindset and stress appraisal interventions

Three studies addressed interventions targeting mindset and stress appraisal. Sharpe et al. (2024, 2025;^36,41) implemented arousal reappraisal interventions in which participants received written instructions encouraging them to interpret physiological responses as functional during Counter-Strike tasks. These studies demonstrated changes in cognitive effort and visual attention patterns (e.g., quiet eye duration), alongside performance-related indicators. Behnke et al. (2024;⁴²) described a three-stage synergetic mindset intervention combining bodily and situational reappraisals strategies delivered across two weeks of structured daily training, a cash-prize tournament, and a one-month follow-up period. The study reported no improvements in affective, physiological, or performance outcomes relative to a control condition, with the authors noting that the intervention's suitability may depend on the perceived stressfulness of the performance context.

Coping and psychological skills

Three studies focused on broader psychological support and coping-oriented interventions in esports. Poulus et al. (2023;⁴⁰) delivered a coping effectiveness training program adapted for esports, consisting of a two-hour workshop and a 45-min follow-up session. Swettenham and Whitehead (2022;³⁸) implemented a five-session online workshop series with a professional League of Legends team, focusing on psychological safety, strengths-based development, pressure management, and acceptance-based strategies (e.g., the 3Rs: recognize, realize, refocus;⁴³). Brain et al. (2024;³⁹) provided psychological support to a national Overwatch team over a four-week period, using acceptance-based techniques, shared values exercises, and psychological skills training (e.g., self-talk, breathing). Across these studies, outcomes were primarily reported using practitioner reflections and self-report measures, with a focus on engagement, team cohesion, perceived coping, focus, and satisfaction with the intervention.

Intervention delivery characteristics and dosage

More detailed examination of intervention delivery characteristics and dosage revealed substantial variability across studies. Two studies implemented single-session interventions using written arousal reappraisal instructions delivered immediately prior to laboratory-based performance tasks.^36,41 In contrast, other interventions involved multi-session or extended psychological support programs. For example, Poulus et al. (2023;⁴⁰) delivered a two-hour coping effectiveness workshop followed by a 45-min follow-up session, while Swettenham and Whitehead (2022;³⁸) conducted a five-session online workshop series with a professional team. Brain et al. (2024;³⁹) provided psychological support over a four-week period, and Behnke et al. (2024;⁴²) implemented a multi-phase mindset intervention across daily training, tournament participation, and a one-month follow-up. Interventions were delivered in both individual and team contexts and across online and laboratory environments. However, several studies provided limited detail regarding session frequency, duration, or total intervention length, which constrained direct comparison of intervention delivery characteristics.

Assessment approaches

The identified studies employed a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess intervention outcomes. Quantitative approaches included self-report questionnaires for coping and mood (e.g.,⁴⁰ and performance-based metrics, such as shooting accuracy and completion times (e.g.,^36,41). Qualitative approaches included interviews, practitioner reflections, and case-based documentation (e.g.,^37,38). Assessment approaches varied widely in terms of measurement strategies, intervention duration, and follow-up. Most studies relied primarily on self-report data and practitioner reflections (e.g.,³⁸), while fewer included objective performance indicators or longer follow-up assessments. Control or comparison groups were uncommon.

Discussion

The purpose of this scoping review was to map how psychological interventions have been described, operationalized, and studied in esports research. Specifically, this review examined the populations studied, the outcome measures used, and key gaps in reporting and methodology across the existing literature. By synthesizing this evidence, the review provides an overview of how psychological intervention research in esports has been documented to date, rather than evaluating intervention effectiveness or applied practice.

The findings indicate that peer-reviewed intervention research in esports is still limited in scope and concentration, with all identified studies published from 2022 onward. This temporal concentration likely reflects the early stage of scholarly investigation into psychological interventions in esports, rather than the novelty of applied practice itself. Indeed, the presence of applied practitioners in esports predates much of the published work, suggesting that academic documentation has lagged behind practice. The seven studies mapped in this review illustrate substantial diversity in intervention focus, delivery formats, and assessment approaches, highlighting the breadth of current work and the challenges associated with synthesizing evidence in a developing research area. This heterogeneity extended to intervention structure, theoretical orientation, and delivery characteristics, including variation in session frequency, duration, format, and whether interventions were delivered as structured programs, experimental manipulations, or practitioner-informed support. Across studies, reporting of participant characteristics and contextual features was inconsistent. For example, nationality and cultural context were rarely specified, limiting the extent to which findings can be interpreted across different esports environments. In addition, reporting of intervention characteristics was often limited or inconsistent, including theoretical orientation, delivery format, and dosage (e.g., session frequency, duration, and overall intervention length). These gaps constrain interpretability, comparability, and replication, highlighting the need for clearer and more comprehensive reporting of contextual and intervention characteristics to support transparency and cumulative knowledge development in esports intervention research.

Notably, the reviewed studies primarily focused on affective and coping-related processes, such as stress regulation, emotional experiences, and wellbeing. While these domains represent important areas of applied sport psychology, other domains, including cognitive-perceptual skills, attentional control, decision-making, and performance preparation, were comparatively underrepresented. Consequently, the limited number of large-scale or controlled studies in esports should be interpreted as a structural feature of applied research rather than a shortcoming of the field itself. This pattern likely reflects the current state of the published intervention literature rather than the full scope of applied sport psychology approaches in esports, reinforcing the importance of systematically mapping how psychological interventions have been conceptualized and reported to date.

Study population

Although peer-reviewed intervention research in esports has increased in recent years, all identified intervention studies were published from 2022 onward, with most appearing in 2024 or later. This pattern suggests that academic documentation of psychological interventions in esports is still developing, rather than indicating that applied practice itself is new. Most studies focused on players of League of Legends and Counter-Strike, particularly those competing at university competitions^36,41) or within structured professional leagues such as the LoL Circuit Oceania.⁴⁰ This concentration may reflect accessibility factors (e.g., established competitive structures, university-based recruitment), game popularity during the study period, or researcher familiarity with these titles. However, it limits generalisability to other game genres (e.g., battle royale, fighting games, sports simulations) that may present different psychological demands and intervention contexts.

Detailed reporting of competitive level was inconsistent across studies, which limited the ability to classify samples using existing frameworks (e.g.,⁴⁴). While some studies referred to participants as professional players, few specified competition level, duration at that level, or competitive achievements (e.g.,^36,38,40,41). This lack of detail limits interpretation of how competitive context may have influenced intervention delivery or outcomes. As a result, the performance context of interventions often remained difficult to characterize, highlighting a need for clearer reporting of competitive status in future research to support interpretability and comparability across studies.

Competitive level may influence how interventions are delivered and integrated within coaching and performance systems. For example, professional teams typically have more structured support environments than amateur or university contexts, which may affect intervention feasibility, delivery format, and transferability. Clear reporting of competitive status is therefore important for interpreting intervention applicability across esports settings.

Study characteristics

The increasing professionalization of esports organizations has implications for how psychological support is structured and studied. Unlike traditional sports, where performance systems are well-established, many esports organizations are still developing support infrastructure (e.g.,¹³). This likely contributes to the predominance of pilot studies and practitioner-informed accounts, reflecting an emerging field in which applied practice is developing alongside academic documentation.

Approximately half of the identified interventions were delivered online, most commonly via Discord (e.g.,³⁹). This aligns with the digital nature of esports and offers potential advantages such as accessibility, flexibility, and familiarity for participants accustomed to virtual interaction. Prior research suggests that virtual delivery can be effective when engagement is supported (e.g.,⁴⁵), though outcomes may depend on contextual and relational factors. For practitioners, engagement with online delivery is shaped by a complex interplay of cognitive and emotional factors, including self-efficacy, attitudes toward technology, and perceived professional impact (see narrative review by ⁴⁶). Within the reviewed studies, practitioners described both opportunities and challenges associated with online delivery, including rapport-building, engagement, and communication constraints (e.g.,^37–39). However, no studies directly compared online and in-person intervention delivery in esports, limiting conclusions regarding delivery format.

Several studies also highlighted challenges related to culturally diverse and multidisciplinary team environments, with practitioners drawing on existing multicultural and applied psychology frameworks to guide their work (e.g.,³⁷). This reflects broader observations that esports performance environments increasingly involve collaboration between coaches, practitioners, and support staff within multidisciplinary performance systems, consistent with holistic ecological perspectives emphasizing integrated performance environments in esports.^6,7,47 Ethical considerations, including role boundaries, confidentiality, and practitioner responsibilities, were also identified as salient aspects of intervention delivery (e.g.,³⁹). However, intervention procedures and practitioner strategies were often insufficiently detailed, limiting transparency and knowledge transfer.

The reviewed studies reflected diverse therapeutic and applied practice paradigms, including cognitive-behavioural, acceptance-based, mindfulness-informed, and consultation-oriented approaches (e.g.,^38–40). These differed in delivery structure, ranging from single-session experimental manipulations (e.g.,^36,41) to multi-session applied support programs embedded within team environments (e.g.,^38,39). Inconsistent reporting of intervention characteristics, including theoretical grounding, delivery format, and dosage, limited comparison across studies and highlights the need for clearer documentation of intervention design and implementation in future esports research.

Intervention strategies and outcomes

Across the included studies, a range of psychological intervention approaches was reported, including acceptance- and mindfulness-based strategies, coping effectiveness training, arousal reappraisal, and team-based communication or cohesion workshops. In line with this diversity, research aims varied considerably across studies. Several studies noted perceived improvements in coping resources, stress appraisal (e.g.,³⁶), and team processes such as shared language, mutual understanding, and psychological safety (e.g.,^37,38). Some studies also reported changes in performance-related indicators (e.g.,^36,41). However, the nature of these indicators and the methods used to assess them varied substantially across studies. Importantly, these approaches reflected different therapeutic orientations and levels of intervention structure, ranging from tightly controlled experimental manipulations to broader applied psychological support, which may influence how interventions are conceptualized, delivered, and reported.

These outcomes reflected performance-related indicators (e.g., objective performance metrics, performance-related appraisals) and well-being or coping-related processes (e.g., stress appraisal, coping resources, and psychological safety). While both domains are relevant to applied practice, they may serve different functions within esports performance environments, with performance indicators often prioritized by coaches, and coping and well-being processes contributing to sustained performance and adaptation over time.

Assessment of intervention outcomes

Outcome assessment included self-report questionnaires (e.g.,⁴⁰), qualitative reflections (e.g.,³⁸), and task-based performance-based metrics (e.g.,³⁶). This diversity reflects efforts to capture both performance-related processes and broader aspects of well-being within esports contexts. Across studies, however, outcome reporting varied considerably. Several studies did not report effect sizes, confidence intervals, or thresholds for meaningful change, which limits interpretation of the magnitude and practical significance of observed effects. In addition, outcome measures differed substantially across studies, ranging from coping and stress-related indicators to task-specific performance outcomes. Qualitative accounts and practitioner reflections provide valuable contextual insights into intervention delivery and participant experience (e.g.,^37,39), particularly in areas that are difficult to capture through standardized instruments. At the same time, the limited consistency in assessment approaches highlights the need for clearer reporting of outcome selection, measurement rationale, and follow-up procedures in future research. The current evidence base therefore reflects diverse methodological approaches, each offering distinct contributions to understanding psychological interventions in esports. Quantitative experimental studies provide preliminary evidence regarding specific mechanisms or short-term effects of interventions, whereas qualitative and case-based studies contribute important insights on contextual factors, implementation processes, and feasibility. Together, these diverse study designs offer complementary perspectives that can guide both research and applied practice in esports. Overall, the current evidence base remains heterogeneous, supporting cautious interpretation of outcomes and highlighting the value of continued methodological development in esports intervention research.

Limitations

Theoretical and methodological limitations in identified studies

Across the included studies, participant samples were predominantly male, with female players comprising only a small proportion of participants (1.6%). As a result, existing evidence primarily reflects the experience of male players, restricting our understanding of how interventions may operate across gender-diverse populations. This imbalance mirrors broader patterns in esports participation and research access, but nevertheless constrains the generalizability of current findings.

Beyond players, limited research has examined psychological interventions targeting other stakeholders within esports, such as coaches and performance staff, who experience similar demands, such as challenges with buy-in, role-clarity, and responsibility for player welfare (e.g.,⁴⁸). These roles face distinct demands related to implementing psychological strategies and shaping team culture. The absence of intervention research involving these roles reflects a gap in academic documentation and limits insights into how psychological support may operate across performance systems. Moreover, the current evidence base is narrow in terms of esports titles and competitive contexts. Most studies have focused on high-level competitors in League of Legends and Counter-Strike at university or professional levels. As a result, less is known about intervention processes in other game genres, development pathways, or amateur contexts. Different esports titles vary in their cognitive, motor, and team coordination demands, performance structures, and training environments, which may influence how psychological interventions are implemented and experienced. While this review does not assess intervention effectiveness across games, the concentration on League of Legends and Counter-Strike limits understanding of how interventions have been delivered and operationalized in other esports contexts. Furthermore, many studies took the form of case reports, pilot studies, or small-scale interventions (e.g.,⁴⁰). Consequently, the limited number of large-scale or controlled studies in esports should be interpreted as a structural feature of applied research rather than a shortcoming of the field itself. Finally, the need to protect participant anonymity in small or easily identifiable samples often resulted in incomplete reporting of demographic and contextual information (e.g., age, nationality, competitive level). While essential for ethical reasons, this further limits contextualization and cross-study comparability.

The limited number of published intervention studies (n = 7) reflects the early stage of esports intervention research rather than an absence of applied practice. Many practitioners working in esports settings may conduct interventions that remain undocumented in peer-reviewed literature, either due to confidentiality requirements, time constraints, or limited access to research partnerships. This highlights the importance of fostering collaborative relationships between researchers and practitioners to support knowledge sharing whilst respecting organizational and ethical boundaries.

Limitations within this review

The scope of this review was intentionally restricted to psychological interventions, operationalized within sport psychology research. This focus excluded studies targeting other related domains such as sleep (e.g.,⁴⁸), physical training,⁴⁹ caffeine intake (e.g.,^50,51), or transcranial stimulation (e.g.,^41,52). As such, this review does not provide a comprehensive overview of all performance-support interventions in esports but instead offers a focused synthesis of how psychological interventions have been described and studied in the literature. In addition, the inclusion of reflective accounts and case studies limits generalizability of findings but was necessary given the current state of the evidence base. However, these sources offer valuable contextual insights about intervention delivery, feasibility, and engagement in esports. Although studies published in German and English were included, relevant research in other languages may not have been captured and could further enrich understanding of intervention practices in future reviews.

Practical implications

The practical implications of this review should be interpreted cautiously, given the limited and heterogeneous nature of the current evidence base. Rather than providing prescriptive recommendations, the findings highlight considerations that may inform reflective and context-sensitive practice among coaches, support staff, and applied practitioners working in esports. The reviewed studies illustrate that a range of psychological strategies has been implemented, but reporting and evidence remain inconsistent, underscoring the importance of transparency, careful implementation, and ongoing evaluation in applied settings.

For coaches and support staff

The reviewed interventions primarily targeted communication and team processes (e.g., goal setting, feedback, psychological safety), stress and arousal regulation (e.g., arousal reappraisal, mindset interventions), and broader psychological skills development (e.g., coping effectiveness training, acceptance-based strategies). Coaches seeking to integrate psychological support may consider how these approaches align with their team's needs, performance context, and existing training structures. Coaches increasingly engage in holistic performance support alongside technical and tactical responsibilities, contributing to psychologically informed performance environments that integrate coaching, psychology, and organizational factors.^6,7,53 Coaches may therefore consider both immediate performance indicators and broader psychological processes, as coping- and well-being-related adaptations may support longer-term performance stability.

Interventions were delivered across both online and in-person formats, with digital platforms such as Discord commonly used. While online delivery offers accessibility and integration within esports environments, practitioner accounts highlighted potential challenges related to engagement, rapport-building, and communication (e.g.,^37–39). Coaches should therefore consider how delivery format may influence interaction and engagement, and adapt implementation accordingly. Esports teams often comprise culturally and linguistically diverse players. Several studies highlighted the importance of considering cultural differences in communication styles, expectations, and team dynamics when implementing psychological strategies (e.g.,³⁷). Additionally, timing and integration appear important, as practitioners joining teams mid-season reported challenges in establishing trust and influencing team culture.³⁸ Where possible, psychological support may be more effective when integrated into ongoing training rather than delivered as isolated interventions. Given the exploratory nature of the current evidence base, coaches should approach psychological interventions with appropriate caution, monitor their impact over time, and seek guidance from qualified practitioners when appropriate. Transparent documentation of intervention delivery and observed outcomes may also support ongoing learning and development within esports organizations.

For applied practitioners

The predominance of case studies and practitioner-informed accounts suggests that much of the existing knowledge remains embedded within applied practice rather than formal research. While these accounts provide valuable insights into feasibility and implementation, clearer reporting of intervention rationale, delivery, and outcomes would support transparency, replication, and cumulative knowledge development.^54,55 Intervention delivery in esports is shaped by distinctive contextual features, including digital communication environments, online training structures, and multinational team compositions. These factors may influence how psychological support is implemented and experienced, highlighting the importance of adapting established sport psychology approaches to fit esports-specific contexts rather than assuming entirely novel intervention models are required. Practitioners also reported challenges related to cultural diversity, organizational dynamics, and role boundaries (e.g.,^37,39). Continued professional development, supervision, and interdisciplinary collaboration may therefore support effective and ethical practice in esports environments.^54,56 Effective psychological support in esports is likely to depend on context-sensitive application of established psychological frameworks, practitioner professional philosophy, ongoing reflective practice, and collaboration between practitioners and researchers.^54,57

Future research

The findings of this review highlight several opportunities to strengthen the evidence base on psychological interventions in esports. Clearer and more comprehensive reporting of intervention characteristics, participant backgrounds, and contextual factors would improve interpretability, comparability, and replication. In particular, future studies should report participant competitive level, duration of competition experience, and relevant organizational or team characteristics. Transparent reporting of intervention delivery, theoretical grounding, and dosage, alongside outcome measures, effect sizes where appropriate, and follow-up assessments, would further support cumulative knowledge development. Reporting of null or mixed findings is equally important to reduce publication bias and provide a balanced evidence base. The current literature is concentrated on a small number of esports titles, primarily League of Legends and Counter-Strike, and largely focuses on male players at university or professional levels. Future research should examine a broader range of game genres, competitive contexts, and developmental pathways, as well as underrepresented populations, including female players, coaches, and support staff. Research examining psychological support across multiple levels of esports performance systems, including team and organizational contexts, may provide a more comprehensive understanding of intervention implementation. Future research would also benefit from methodological diversity, including experimental, longitudinal, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches, recognizing that different research questions require different designs. Clearer articulation of theoretical assumptions and intervention mechanisms would support knowledge accumulation, particularly regarding how established sport psychology approaches are adapted to esports-specific contexts, such as digital performance environments and mediated communication (e.g.,^54,55). Qualitative and mixed-methods research may be especially valuable for examining intervention processes, contextual influences, and participant experiences. Finally, collaborative research partnerships between researchers and esports organizations, alongside transparent reporting and open science practices, may support the development of a more coherent, ecologically valid, and accessible evidence base over time (e.g.,^13,58).

Conclusion

This review mapped how psychological interventions have been described and studied in esports research to date. The identified studies reflect growing scholarly attention to psychological support in esports, while highlighting substantial variability in intervention focus, delivery characteristics, and assessment approaches. Across the literature, interventions have primarily been exploratory, with limitations in sample composition, outcome reporting, and follow-up duration constraining comparability and cumulative interpretation. These findings suggest that esports intervention research is at an early stage of academic documentation, rather than reflecting a lack of applied practice. By synthesizing existing evidence and identifying key gaps in reporting and methodology, this review provides a foundation for more transparent, cumulative, and context-sensitive research, and supports continued collaboration between researchers and applied practitioners to advance psychological support in esports.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Oliver Leis

Benjamin T Sharpe

Ethical considerations

No new data were collected from human participants, human tissue, or identifiable private information. Therefore, ethical approval by an Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board was not required.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Author contributions

A1 Conceptualization, Methodology, Study Selection Process, Data analysis, Quality Assessment, Writing—Original Draft, Project Administration; A2: Study Selection Process; A3: Methodology, Writing—Review & Editing; Critical Friend; A4: Quality Assessment; A5: Writing—Original Draft; Writing—Review & Editing.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

No new data were generated for this systematic review. All data analysed are available in the publicly accessible studies cited in the manuscript.

References

Jin

Besombes

, et al. Global history of esports. In: Jenny

Besombes

Brock

(eds) Routledge handbook of esports. London, UK; New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2024, pp.19–29.

Pedraza-Ramirez

Musculus

Raab

, et al. Setting the scientific stage for esports psychology: a systematic review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2020; 13: 319–352.

Baker

Sharpe

, et al. Current status and key topics in esports research. In: Jenny

Besombes

Brock

(eds) Routledge handbook of esports. London, UK; New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2024, pp.84–96.

Scholz

. A short history of eSports and management. In: Scholz

(ed.) eSports is Business. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, pp.17–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11199-1 .

Leis

Raue

Dreiskämper

, et al. To be or not to be (e) sports? That is not the question! why and how sport and exercise psychology could research esports. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 2021; 51: 241–247.

Watson

Abbott

Pedraza-Ramirez

. A parallel approach to performance and sport psychology work in esports teams. Int J Esports 2021; 1: 1–6. Available at: https://www.ijesports.org/article/52/html.

Watson

Smith

Fenton

, et al. Introducing esports coaching to sport coaching (not as sport coaching). Sports Coach Rev 2025; 14: 263–282.

Nagorsky

Wiemeyer

. The structure of performance and training in esports. PLoS One 2020; 15: 1–39.

Poulus

Coulter

Trotter

, et al. A qualitative analysis of the perceived determinants of success in elite esports athletes. J Sports Sci 2022; 40: 742–753.

10.

Leis

Franziska

Birch

, et al. Stressors, perceived stress responses, and coping strategies in professional esports players: a qualitative study. Int J Esports 2022; 1(1): 1–22.

11.

Holden

Kaburakis

Rodenberg

. The future is now: esports policy considerations and potential litigation. J Legal Aspects Sport 2017; 27: 46–78.

12.

Matsui

Takahashi

Ochi

, et al. Cognitive decline with pupil constriction independent of subjective fatigue during prolonged esports across player expertise levels. Comput Hum Behav 2024; 156: 108219.

13.

Leis

Sharpe

Pelikan

, et al. Stressors and coping strategies in esports: a systematic review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2024: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2024.2386528

14.

Poulus

Sharpe

. A protocol for international mental health guidelines for esports. J Electron Gaming Esports 2025; 3: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jege.2024-0066

15.

Kegelaers

Mairesse

Van Ruysevelt

, et al. The mental health status of esports athletes. J Electron Gaming Esports 2025; 3: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jege.2025-0017

16.

Monteiro Pereira

Costa

Verhagen

, et al. Associations between esports participation and health: a scoping review. Sports Med 2022; 52: 2039–2060.

17.

Lee

Bonnar

Roane

, et al. Sleep characteristics and mood of professional esports athletes: a multi-national study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 664. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/664 .

18.

Bányai

Griffiths

Király

, et al. The psychology of esports: a systematic literature review. J Gambl Stud 2019; 35: 351–365.

19.

Swettenham

Abott

Leis

, et al. Applied sport psychology in esports. In: Jenny

Besombes

Brock

(eds) Routledge handbook of esports. London, UK; New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2024, pp.214–224.

20.

Henriksen

Larsen

Storm

, et al. Sport psychology interventions with young athletes: the perspective of the sport psychology practitioner. J Clin Sport Psychol 2014; 8: 245–260.

21.

Vealey

. Current status and prominent issues in sport psychology interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: 495–502.

22.

Weinberg

Comar

. The effectiveness of psychological interventions in competitive sport. Sports Med 1994; 18: 406–418.

23.

Rumbold

Fletcher

Daniels

. A systematic review of stress management interventions with sport performers. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2012; 1: 173–193.

24.

Gröpel

Mesagno

. Choking interventions in sports: a systematic review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2019; 12: 176–201.

25.

Prior

Papathomas

Rhind

. A systematic scoping review of athlete mental health within competitive sport: interventions, recommendations, and policy. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2024; 17: 903–925.

26.

Sly

Mellalieu

Wagstaff

CRD

. “It’s psychology Jim, but not as we know it!”: the changing face of applied sport psychology. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2020; 9: 87–101.

27.

Sabiston

Vani

de Jonge

, et al. Scoping reviews and rapid reviews. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2022; 15: 91–119.

28.

Pedraza-Ramirez

Sharpe

Behnke

, et al. The psychology of esports: trends, challenges, and future directions. Psychol Sport Exerc 2025; 81: 102967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102967

29.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467–473.

30.

Leis

Lautenbach

. Psychological and physiological stress in non-competitive and competitive esports settings: a systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc 2020; 51: 101738.

31.

Welsh

Mosley

Laborde

, et al. The use of heart rate variability in esports: a systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc 2023; 69: 102495.

32.

Goddard

Stevens

Jackman

, et al. A systematic review of flow interventions in sport and exercise. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2023; 16: 657–692.

33.

Landis

Koch

. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977; 33: 363–374.

34.

Prior

Papathomas

Rhind

. A systematic scoping review of athlete mental health within competitive sport: interventions, recommendations, and policy. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2024; 17: 903–925.

35.

Hong

Fàbregues

Bartlett

, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf 2018; 34: 285–291.

36.

Sharpe

Leis

Moore

, et al. Reappraisal and mindset interventions on pressurised esport performance. Appl Psychol 2024; 73: 2178–2199.

37.

Agrawal

Gupta

Swettenham

. Same game, many cultures: a multicultural reflection on a trainee’s intervention work with a professional esports team. Case Stud Sport Exerc Psychol 2024; 8: 36–45.

38.

Swettenham

Whitehead

. Working in esports: developing team cohesion. Case Stud Sport Exerc Psychol 2022; 6: 36–44.

39.

Brain

Wright

Quartiroli

, et al. Supporting a national team during the Overwatch World Cup: three confessional tales. Case Stud Sport Perform Psychol 2024; 8: 1–28.

40.

Poulus

Bennett

Swann

, et al. The influence of an esports-adapted coping effectiveness training (E-CET) on resilience, mental health, and subjective performance among elite League of Legends players: a pilot study. Psychol Sport Exerc 2023; 69: 102510.

41.

Sharpe

Poulus

, et al. Enhancing pressurized esports performance: a pilot study on the combined effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and arousal reappraisal. Anxiety Stress Coping 2025; 38(6): 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2025.2502792

42.

Behnke

Lakens

Petrova

, et al. Applying a synergistic mindsets intervention to an esports context. R Soc Open Sci 2024; 11: 240691.

43.

Hansen

Haberl

. Helping athletes be present when performing under pressure. In: Henriksen

Hansen

Larsen

(eds) Mindfulness and acceptance in sport: how to help athletes perform and thrive under pressure. London, UK; New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2019, pp.47–58.

44.

Poulus

Nicholson

Obine

, et al. The state of mental health research in esports: A scoping review. ResearchGate, 2024. Available at: https://shorturl.at/1h7Tb.

45.

Ierardi

Bottini

Riva Crugnola

. Effectiveness of an online versus face-to-face psychodynamic counselling intervention for university students before and during the COVID-19 period. BMC Psychol 2022; 10: 35.

46.

Haydon

Fowler

Taylor

, et al. Psychological factors that contribute to the use of video consultations in health care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2024; 26: e54636.

47.

Pedraza-Ramirez

Ramaker

Mathorne

, et al. Behind the curtains of elite esports: a case study from a holistic ecological approach to talent development. Case Stud Sport Exerc Psychol 2024; 8: S1-18–S1S27.

48.

Bonnar

Lee

Roane

, et al. Evaluation of a brief sleep intervention designed to improve the sleep, mood, and cognitive performance of esports athletes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 4146.

49.

McNulty

Jenny

Leis

, et al. Physical exercise and performance in esports players: an initial systematic review. J Electron Gaming Esports 2023; 1(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jege.2022-0014

50.

Rogers

Trotter

Johnson

, et al. Caffeine improves the shooting performance and reaction time of first-person shooter esports players: a dose-response study. Front Sports Act Living 2024; 6: 1437700.

51.

Rogers

Trotter

Johnson

, et al. Caffeine source and shooting performance among esports players: Coffee versus energy drink. J Electron Gaming Esports 2025; 3: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1123/jege.2025-0003

52.

Jiao

Zhuang

Nitsche

, et al. Application of transcranial alternating current stimulation to improve eSports-related cognitive performance. Front Neurosci 2024; 18: 1308370.

53.

Wagstaff

CRD

Quartiroli

. A systems-led approach to developing psychologically informed environments. J Sport Psychol Action 2023; 14: 227–242.

54.

Cottrell

McMillen

Harris

. Sport psychology in a virtual world: considerations for practitioners working in eSports. J Sport Psychol Action 2019; 10: 73–81.

55.

Ramaker

Pedraza-Ramirez

. Everyone is figuring it out along the way: diving headfirst into the world of esports. In: Prior

Holder

(eds) Navigating applied sport and exercise psychology: reflections and insights from emerging practitioners. London, UK; New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2023, pp.84–99.

56.

Quartiroli

Wagstaff

Hunter

, et al. The identity of the sport psychology profession: a multinational perspective. Psychol Sport Exerc 2022; 60: 102140.

57.

Goldman

Gervis

. A revised approach to professional philosophy for sport and exercise psychology practitioners. J Appl Sport Psychol 2025: 1–22. 10.1080/10413200.2025.2589720

58.

Leis

Poulus

Trotter

, et al. Stressors and coping among esports coaches. Psychol Sport Exerc 2026; 84: 103069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2026.103069