MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399525176 · doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02045-w

50 Years of Research on the Psychology of Sport Injury: A Consensus Statement

2024· article· en· W4399525176 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrika Tranæus, Adam Gledhill, Urban Johnson, Leslie Podlog, Ross Wadey, Diane M. Wiese‐Bjornstal, Andréas Ivarsson

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCentrum för idrottsforskningVetenskapsrådetGymnastik- och idrottshögskolan
KeywordsSport psychologyPsychologyApplied psychologyPsychological interventionSports medicinePsychosocialRehabilitationAthletesCompetence (human resources)Clinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPhysical therapyPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.199
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.199
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0080.014
Research integrity0.0140.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations58
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207