Balance, reframe, and overcome: The attitudes, priorities, and perceptions of exercise‐based activities in youth 12–24 months after a sport‐related ACL injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attitudes, priorities, and perceptions of exercise directly influence exercise behaviors. Despite the benefits of exercise-based activities for future health, little is known about how youth who experience an ACL injury view exercise-based activity beyond the immediate recovery period. A qualitative (interpretative description) approach with one-to-one semistructured interviews was used to probe the current attitudes, priorities, and perceptions of exercise-therapy, physical activity, and sport participation with a purposive sample of youth from an ongoing inception cohort study who experienced an ACL tear or reconstruction in the past 12-24 months. Analyses followed an inductive approach guided by an analytic interpretative description process. Reflexive journaling, memoing, and a detailed audit trail promoted data trustworthiness. A patient-partner was involved throughout. Ten youth (six women, four men), 15-19 years of age, and a median of 20-months (16-26) from injury were interviewed. Three overarching themes were identified. 'Balancing physical activity and future knee health' highlighted ongoing negotiations between what were perceived to be competing priorities for return-to-sport and future knee health. 'Reframing the value of exercise-therapy and physical activity' reflected the importance of reshaping attitudes toward exercise as positive and was linked to exercise adherence. 'Overcoming unforeseen exercise challenges' encompassed persisting psychological and physical challenges perceived to limit exercise-based activities. Clinical significance: reframing exercise-based activities in a positive light and leveraging motivation for return-to-sport and life-long knee health may be important strategies for encouraging ongoing exercise therapy and physical activity following a youth ACL injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".