Psychological Risk Factors and Outcomes of Dance Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, dance medicine and science has focused on the physical aspects rather than the psychological aspects of dance injury. Psychological variables, however, have been shown to influence the occurrence of injury and post-injury outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the dance psychology literature and determine the specific psychological factors reported to be associated with the incidence, frequency, and outcome of dance injuries. A systematic literature search was conducted using SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. All retrieved articles were screened based on criteria developed a priori, and selected articles were subsequently assessed for quality. Thirteen studies met the inclusion and quality assessment criteria. Psychological factors associated with both risk and outcome of dance injury included the following: stress, psychological distress, disordered eating, and coping. Factors associated only with risk of injury were sleep, personality, and social support. The results suggest that psychological variables can affect both the incidence and outcome of dance injury among dancers. Therefore, it is critical to gain a well-rounded, thorough understanding of all the factors, including psychological, that have a negative impact on dancers with respect to dance injury. The findings are discussed in terms of the utility of including psychological assessment and intervention, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, when implementing preventative and treatment measures in dance schools and companies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".