The Psychological Effects of Sport-related Concussion on Rehabilitation Adherence and Motor Learning Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport-related concussions significantly impact athletes, affecting psychological health and recovery outcomes. This meta-analysis examined the influence of psychological factors, such as anxiety, depression, and motivation, on rehabilitation adherence and motor learning in athletes recovering from concussions, with subgroup analyses by gender, age, and sport type. A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO identified five studies, revealing that anxiety and depression consistently reduced rehabilitation adherence, while low motivation delayed motor skill reacquisition. Female athletes exhibited higher anxiety and depression levels, younger athletes experienced greater emotional distress, and contact-sport athletes faced more severe psychological effects compared to non-contact sports. Although minimal heterogeneity was found (I² = 0%), potential publication bias was noted in the funnel plot. These findings underscore the critical role of psychological factors in recovery, highlighting the need for integrated mental health interventions and motivational strategies to improve rehabilitation and motor learning. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies and targeted psychological interventions to enhance recovery protocols for athletes.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it