How Important are Psychological Measures to Determine Readiness to Return to Sports after Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament? An Online Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that psychological factors are important components of a successful return to sports (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to survey physicians with respect to their criteria used to determine readiness to RTS after ACLR and to understand the significance of psychological factors on RTS. METHODS: A survey was designed to understand the practices of clinicians managing rehabilitation after ACLR, consisting of 25 questions divided into 3 different sections, including one section about psychological scores and factors affecting RTS. The survey was delivered to three North American organizations for orthopedic sports medicine. RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 113. Of the respondents, 95% considered psychological tests at least "somewhat important" (33% "important", 23% selected "very important"). Routine use of psychological tests in practice was only reported by 35% of respondents. The ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale was the most frequently used psychological test (23%). Fear of reinjury was considered the most common patient-cited psychological factor affecting RTS. Psychological factors ranked 8th out of 9 outcomes measures in determining readiness to RTS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a discrepancy between the importance of psychological tests and the frequency of use in practice. Additional education on this topic, web-based applications, and a multidisciplinary approach may increase the usage of psychological tests to determine RTS after ACLR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".