An examination of changes in psychological status across four phases of injury recovery and return to sport: A prospective weekly study of competitive athletes from acute care to return to sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While ample research has shown that sport injuries are associated with poor psychological status, scant attention has been given to changes in injured athletes' psychological status over the full course of recovery and return to sport. The aim of the present study was to prospectively investigate potential changes in injured athletes' psychological status across four phases of recovery and return to sport. A total of 38 severely injured adult competitive athletes (58% female; mean age 24.1 ± 7.18 years) participated in this prospective weekly investigation (n = 319 observations). Athletes' were asked to indicate their current phase of recovery or return to sport (acute care, rehabilitation, adapted training, or full return to sport) after which they responded to visual analog scales assessing post-injury psychological status, including: perceived pain (frequency and intensity), emotions (positive and negative), anxiety (cognitive and physiological), motivation, self-efficacy, and satisfaction. During the acute care phase, participants showed higher scores of perceived pain, and physiological anxiety compared to the other phases. During the adapted training phase, amotivation was higher than in the acute care phase, and self-efficacy was lower than in other phases. At full return to sport, athletes showed less perceived pain, cognitive anxiety, and more satisfaction than during other phases. The present study provides a deeper prospective understanding of changes in athlete's psychological status over the course of injury recovery and return to sport and highlight the importance of monitoring psychological status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".