MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3021841008

Evaluation of the use of healing imagery in athletic injury rehabilitation

2010· article· en· W3021841008 on OpenAlexaff
Joel M. Cressman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical therapyGuided imageryPsychologyAthletesCoping (psychology)Mental imageIntervention (counseling)Treatment and control groupsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyMedicineCognitionPsychiatryAnxiety
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healing imagery can be defined as both visualizing affirmative images ofinternal physiological healing occurring in an injured area and visualizing oneselfas healthy and fully functioning (Driediger, Hall, & Callow, 2006). Healing imagery has been found to effectively reduce the time of recovery from various athletic injuries when used in combination with other mental skills, such as self-talk and relaxation (Ievleva & Orlick, 1991). However, the literature remains void of a study that specifically examines healing imagery and the potential benefits that may accompany the regular application ofhealing imagery techniques alone. This study examined the effects ofan imagery intervention on the recovery ofathletes experiencing an athletic injury in comparison to a control group who did not receive the imagery manipulation. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effectiveness ofa healing imagery intervention through comparing the two groups on: satisfaction with rehabilitation, self-efficacy to recover, and recovery time. The sample consisted of 13 injured varsity athletes (intervention group, n=6; control group, n=7) utilizing the athletic therapy services at Wilfrid Laurier University. A significant interaction effect was found for satisfaction with rehabilitation, as athletes’ in the intervention group increased in satisfaction from week 2 to 3 while the control group decreased in satisfaction during the same time period. The intervention group also used significantly more cognitive imagery than the control group. Both groups were found to be significantly higher in task self-efficacy than coping self-efficacy during injury rehabilitation. A follow-up qualitative analysis ofthe intervention group revealed that the healing imagery intervention positively affected athletes’ in a unique, individualized manner. Results are discussed with respect to a gained understanding of imagery effects, study limitations, and future directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→