ADOLESCENTS’ SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING FOLLOWING KNEE INJURY: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON PERCEIVED AUTONOMY SUPPORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During adolescence, knee injuries are common and can greatly affect patients’ subjective well-being. Social support has been identified as a buffer against ill-being after knee injury. Self-determination theory holds that optimal social support nurtures the psychological need for autonomy, which is defined as a sense of personal endorsement of one’s actions. This longitudinal study aimed to examine the contributions of perceived parent and physician autonomy support to the subjective well-being of knee-injured adolescents. A total of 44 adolescent patients (Mage = 14.7 years) from a paediatric sports medicine clinic participated. In the waiting room (T0), data on perceived parental autonomy support, subjective well-being, athletic identity, and knee function were collected. After their appointment (T1), participants rated their perception of physician autonomy support. Participants later reported their subjective well-being monthly, for 3 months (T2–T4). Descriptive analyses revealed that perceived parental autonomy support was positively and often strongly correlated with subsequent subjective well-being. The positive association remained significant solely at T3 in regressions controlling for physician autonomy support, baseline subjective well-being, and other key confounders. Perceived physician autonomy support was positively but non-significantly correlated with later subjective well-being. These results suggest that perceived autonomy support, particularly from parents, may help overcome the deleterious effects of knee injury on adolescents’ subjective well-being.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".