Importance of the Student Therapist/Athlete Relationship and Goal-Setting in Injury Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has highlighted the importance of relationships (e.g., athletic therapist/client) and psychological skill use to manage negative emotions (e.g., frustration, anger) in order to obtain optimal adherence and injury rehabilitation outcomes. However, the relationship between student athletic therapists and varsity athletes has not been examined. Thus, the objective was to examine the relationship between student therapists and varsity athletes and psychological skill use in injury rehabilitation in relation to adherence. Two senior student therapists and three varsity athletes who had completed injury rehabilitation were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Both groups of participants described the role of the student therapists as being primarily focused on injury prevention and management. Furthermore, the peer relationships that developed were valued. Goal-setting was used in injury rehabilitation to guide progress, improve adherence, and frame injuries as temporary setbacks. Participants were familiar with imagery from use in other context, however did not report using it in injury rehabilitation. Finally, participants acknowledged that adherence was not perfect, but acknowledged the peer relationships and collaborative goal-setting as helpful. These findings highlight the importance of the relationship between student therapists and athletes and suggest these relationships may support athlete adherence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".