Perceptions of psychological well-being during sport injury recovery: Experiences of seriously injured women athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport injury is a stressful event because it poses threats to an athlete's physical, emotional, and social well-being (Heil, 1993), which manifests cognitively, emotionally, and behaviourally (Brewer, 2007). Conversly, there is much to be gained from the sport injury experience (Tracey, 2003). There has been very little attention given to athletes' psychological well-being (PWB) during injury recovery. PWB is defined as well or actualizing one's true potentials (Deci & Ryan, 2001, p.2). A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 women varsity athletes with current serious injuries (out of sport for 21+days) was employed to investigate athletes' perceptions and experiences of PWB during sport injury recovery. Interviews focused on athlete-generated descriptions of PWB, and sport injury's impact on experiences of PWB in different contexts. Three main themes were developed. First, balancing life domains (e.g. sport, school, family) was identified as an important aspect of PWB, living congruently with an emphasis on purpose and growth. Secondly, sport injury disrupted equilibrium, where athletes faced identity crises, isolation, depression, and a lack of purpose. Athletes mitigated this loss by engaging and finding meaning in non-sport areas and seeking social support, specifically from people who had experienced injury. Thirdly, sport injury was identified as an opportunity for psychological growth, cultivating resilience and a greater appreciation of health and sport. Findings will be considered in relation to the growing literature on sport injury and PWB and help further our understanding of injured athletes' experiences of PWB and how athletes could be better supported.Acknowledgments: Project funded by SSHRC
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".