The psychosocial factors of rehabilitation and return to sport in concussed athletes: a qualitative multiple-case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The return to sport (RTS) strategy requires athletes with sport-related concussion (SRC) to engage in symptom-limited activity before resuming sport participation. However, RTS focuses on physical rehabilitation and does not comprehensively account for athletes’ thoughts, emotions, behaviours, and social relationships. We explored psychosocial factors experienced by Canadian university athletes during SRC rehabilitation. Four athletes (n = 3 females; Mage = 21.75, SD = 1.26) who experienced an SRC within the past five years (M = 3.33, SD = 1.15) and completed the RTS strategy participated in this study. Participants completed a timeline of important events and experiences during their rehabilitation and completed two virtual semi-structured interviews. Based on our reflexive thematic analysis, we organised the data into four themes: a) In the moment: making sense of injury; b) Seeing the athlete, not the student; c) Roles that shift: the changing nature of support over time; and d) Running out of time: the impact of time-sensitive RTS goals. Our findings highlight the interplay of athletes’ thoughts (e.g. injury appraisals), emotions (e.g. fear), and behaviours (e.g. goal setting) with social agents and across settings (e.g. sport, school) throughout RTS. Findings can help researchers, healthcare providers, and team members consider when and how psychosocial factors can influence the quality of SRC rehabilitation.
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 | 0.027 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".