MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

8.9 Which psychosocial factors are associated with return to sport following concussion? A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4391384684 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline van Ierssel, Jeffrey G. Caron, Kaleigh Ferdinand Pennock, Roger Zemek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLConcussionPsychosocialPsychologyAthletesClinical psychologyThematic analysisFootballMEDLINEQualitative researchPoison controlPhysical therapyApplied psychologyMedicineInjury preventionPsychological interventionPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To examine the criteria used to assess psychological readiness to return-to-sport following concussion to support graduated stepwise recommendations. Design Scoping review. Setting MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL were searched using database-specific MeSH terms and keywords. Reference lists were manually searched. Participants Eligibility criteria included original publications describing psychological factors related to return-to-sport (at any level) following a diagnosed concussion. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed; two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed evidence level using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM). Outcome Measures Scale or measure employed (quantitative studies) and/or key thematic concepts (qualitative studies) related to psychological readiness to return-to-sport. Main Results Of 1469 studies, 2 quantitative cohort studies (OCEBM level-3) representing 112 athletes (71% male; high-school and collegiate collision/contact athletes) and 2 qualitative studies representing 45 athletes (89% male; 89% football players; aged 9–25 years) were included. Quantitative assessments included the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia modified for concussion and a single-item Likert scale question each for fear of reinjury and fear of return-to-sport. Main qualitative themes included fear of replacement or letting down the team, stigma, knowledge of consequences, social support, and peer pressure as influential. Conclusions Despite recommendations to assess psychological readiness to return-to-sport following concussion, there is insufficient evidence upon which to make clinical decisions. Future research should identify key concepts and themes using qualitative studies, with subsequent development and validation of a concussion-specific outcome measure to identify athletes who might benefit from psychological intervention to resume sporting activities.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→