Lived experiences of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma 6 months following injury in the UK: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Traumatic musculoskeletal injuries are common and often life changing. The 6-month period following injury is a critical phase in recovery, during which engagement with rehabilitation professionals can be key to achieving positive outcomes. However, there is limited understanding of which aspects of recovery matter most to patients, how they define a successful recovery and what this looks like when captured during the lived recovery process. The aim of this study was to explore patients' views and perceptions of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma and to understand what constitutes successful recovery at 6 months postinjury. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interpretative phenomenological analysis through semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Major trauma centre in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 13 participants (mean age (SD) 51 (17) years, 69% male) completed the interview. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: 18 years, musculoskeletal injury from a traumatic event and ability to communicate in English. Purposive sampling included age, gender, injury severity and injury type. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) The recovery journey: participants reflected on their recovery while still processing the accident/injuries. They often drew on other people's experiences to make sense of their recovery. Recovery was accompanied by a range of negative emotions and personal challenges. (2) The outcome: participants used multiple strategies to work towards recovery, guided by personalised individual goals. A successful recovery was defined as their 'normal'. (3) Healthcare/clinicians impact recovery: Participants reported confusion and mixed messages from healthcare professionals, leading to uncertainty around injury management. Fragmented care pathway and difficulties accessing healthcare and support were also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery at 6 months post injury involves a complex interplay of physical and emotional factors. This period can be particularly challenging to navigate, often with no or limited support. There is a need for a targeted, individualised approach to guide patients through this period of recovery. Participants' focus was on the outcome following their injury, setting goals for the future, with successful recovery defined as 'normal'. Further research is needed to support clinicians in developing effective psychologically informed rehabilitation plans.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".