| Title |
Negative psychological responses of injury and rehabilitation adherence effects on return to play in competitive athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oajsm.s112688 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Ivarsson, Ulrika Tranaeus, Urban Johnson, Andreas Stenling |
| Abstract |
Previous research offers evidence that psychological factors influence an injured athlete during the rehabilitation process. Our first objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the results from all published studies that examined the relationships among negative affective responses after sport injuries, rehabilitation adherence, and return to play (RTP). The second objective was to use a meta-analytic path analysis to investigate whether an indirect effect existed between negative affective responses and RTP through rehabilitation adherence. This literature review resulted in seven studies providing 14 effect sizes. The results from the meta-analysis showed that negative affective responses had a negative effect on successful RTP, whereas rehabilitation adherence had a positive effect on RTP. The results from the meta-analytic path analysis showed a weak and nonsignificant indirect effect of negative affective responses on RTP via rehabilitation adherence. These results underline the importance of providing supportive environments for injured athletes to increase the chances of successful RTP via a decrease in negative affective responses and increase in rehabilitation adherence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 24% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 71% |
| Scientists | 4 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 174 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 56 | 32% |
| Psychology | 19 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 56 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,867,030
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#64
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,828
of 324,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.