The student athletic therapist - varsity athlete relationship and psychological skill use in injury rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to the physical trauma athletic injuries can cause, many injured athletes also experience significant social and psychological effects of the injury as they move through rehabilitation. For many high performance athletes, an athletic therapist serves as the first point of contact with the sports medicine team and frequently becomes a major source of support for the injured athlete. However, for varsity athletes (VAs) at many small universities, the first contact is usually with a student athletic therapist (SAT) imbedded with the team. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine how relational perceptions that may exist in the SAT-VA relationship may relate to the use of psychological skills in injury coping and rehabilitation. METHODS: Two SATs and three VAs participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis, guided by the questions was used to examine how the SAT-VA relationship was viewed by both groups and how it influenced the use of psychological skills in the rehabilitation process. RESULTS: The relationship between SATs and VAs was characterized as a supportive, open, peer-level relationship. This peer-level relationship facilitated a co-operative approach to goal setting regarding return to play. Both the nature of the relationship and goal setting were viewed as beneficial for adherence to injury rehabilitation and were valued by both the SATs and the VAs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of the relationship between SATs and athletes and may be used to inform best practice.Acknowledgments: Dr. Jim MacLeod for providing the opportunity for this study. This study was supported by funding through the Webster Undergraduate Research Award.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".