50 Years of Research on the Psychology of Sport Injury: A Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factors influencing sport injury risk, rehabilitation outcomes, and return to sport processes have been the focus in various research disciplines (sports medicine, psychology and sociology). One discipline, with over 50 years of scholarship, is the psychology of sport injury. Despite the research in this field, there is no evidence-based consensus to inform professional practice. The aim of this original and timely consensus statement is to summarise psychological sport injury research and provide consensus recommendations for sport practitioners seeking to implement psychological principles into clinical practice. A total of seven experts with extensive experience outlined the consensus objectives and identified three psychology of sport injury sub-domains: risk, rehabilitation and return to sport. The researchers, grouped in pairs, prepared initial drafts of assigned sub-domains. The group met in Stockholm, and the three texts were merged into a draft and revised in an iterative process. Stress responses are the strongest psychological risk factor for acute injuries. Intra- and interpersonal factors, as well as sociocultural factors, are demonstrated psychosocial risk factors for overuse injuries. Stress management and mindfulness interventions to prevent injuries have been successfully implemented. The rehabilitation process may influence athlete's cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses. Social support, mindfulness, acceptance-based practices, and cognitive-behavioural based intervention programs reduce negative reactions. Return to sport includes various stages and different trajectories. Returning athletes typically experience concerns regarding competence, autonomy, and relatedness. It is recommended that athletes focus on the physical, technical, and psychological demands of their sport as they progress to increasingly intense activities. Interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., sports medicine and psychology) would be beneficial in enhancing clinical practice and improving athlete outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".