MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386846346 · doi:10.1186/s13102-023-00731-2

Athletes’ experiences of using a self-directed psychological support, the BAck iN the Game (BANG) smartphone application, during rehabilitation for return to sports following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

2023· article· en· W4386846346 on OpenAlexaff
Magnus Ringberg, Ann Catrine Eldh, Clare L. Ardern, Joanna Kvist

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilCentrum för idrottsforskningAmerican Orthopaedic Society for Sports MedicineLänsstyrelsen ÖstergötlandVetenskapsrådetLinköpings UniversitetForskningsrådet i Sydöstra Sverige
KeywordsRehabilitationAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAthletesIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyPsychologyApplied psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), many athletes do not return to their sport, often driven by concerns about re-injury. Psychological support strategies might help, but are not routinely included in rehabilitation after ACLR. The BAck iN the Game (BANG) intervention is a 24-week eHealth program delivered via smartphone application (app), beginning directly after ACLR, with a self-directed approach that aims to target the specific challenges athletes encounter in rehabilitation. AIM: To describe athletes' experiences of using the BANG app during rehabilitation, to support returning to sport following ACLR. METHOD: Participants were athletes, in contact and/or non-contact pivoting sports, who had ACLR with the goal to return to sports. Semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted 6-10 months after their ACLR; all had access to the BANG intervention. Verbatim transcripts were analysed with a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The 19 participants were 17-30 years, mean 21.6 years (SD 3.5); 7 men and 12 women. The analysis generated three main categories. (A) Interacting with the app illustrated how, when, or why the participants engaged with the app. The app was helpful because of its varying content, the notifications served as reminders and participants stopped using the app when no longer needing it. (B) Challenging experiences with the app illustrated that the app itself came with some difficulties e.g., content not appearing with the right timing and material not tailored to their sport. (C) Supportive experiences with the app reflected how the app facilitated the participants' rehabilitation progress; it included positive aspects of the app content and navigation, boosting their confidence to return to sport, and motivated them to continue with rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the interviews illustrates athletes' awareness in interacting with, and the challenging and supportive experiences of using the app. The BANG app might provide support for returning to sport, primarily psychological support, as an adjunct to regular physiotherapy-guided rehabilitation. Athletes' experiences of the BANG app could be improved by healthcare professionals providing additional advice about when to use which content and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03959215. Registered 22 May 2019.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Sports Science Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207