MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361228625 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s396054

Longitudinal Validation of a Specific Measure of Fear Avoidance in Athletes: Predicting Time from Injury to Return to Sports Competition

2023· article· en· W4361228625 on OpenAlexaff
Noémie Tito, Erica Porter, Tristan Castonguay, Geoffrey Dover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesMedicinePsychosocialRehabilitationPredictive validityPhysical therapyPopulationClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We developed the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire (AFAQ) to measure fear avoidance in athletes. Previous fear avoidance scales were developed for the general population and have demonstrated significant predictive capabilities regarding rehabilitation. No research to date has examined the association between athlete fear avoidance as measured by the AFAQ and the rehabilitation time in athletes. Patients and Methods: Fifty-nine athletes who were injured during sport season participated in the study (40 males and 19 females). At injury onset, all participants completed self-report functional questionnaires. In addition, we measured multiple aspects of fear avoidance including athlete fear avoidance (AFAQ), kinesiophobia (TSK), and pain catastrophizing (PCS). Finally, we assessed pain severity and interference, as well as depression. Once the athletes were able to return to competition all participants answered the questionnaires again. Pearson correlations and a regression analysis were used to identify relationships between function, psychological variables, pain, and return to competition time. Results: The AFAQ yielded the strongest correlation with return to competition time ( r =0.544, p < 0.001). In addition, function at initial injury time and pain interference were also significantly correlated with return to competition time ( r =0.442, p < 0.001 and r =0.356, p =0.006 respectively). Athlete fear-avoidance combined with function at the time of injury explained 34% of the variance of return to competition time in the multivariate regression model ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Athlete fear-avoidance as measured by the AFAQ is associated with rehabilitation time and returning to competition in injured athletes. Psychosocial factors including athlete fear avoidance may explain why some athletes take longer to rehabilitate than others and should be evaluated in athletes who are taking longer than anticipated to complete their rehabilitation. Reducing athlete fear avoidance may facilitate rehabilitation in future studies. Keywords: catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, psychosocial factors, rehabilitation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207