Cross-sectional survey reveals perceptions on rehabilitation teamwork among NCAA Division I athletes, highlighting needs for mental health support.
Sport injuries continue to be unavoidable disruptions in student-athletes' athletic careers. Researchers continue to emphasize the importance of an interprofessional approach to rehabilitation to help athletes manage the adverse psychological and emotional reactions to injury. To extend and replicate the research of Clement and Arvinen-Barrow by incorporating perspectives of Division I US student-athletes. The current study describes 321 NCAA Division I college athletes' experiences of receiving interprofessional care during injury rehabilitation and second, to explore perceptions of, and access to, sport psychology professionals during rehabilitation. A multimethod, cross-sectional survey where participants were asked to complete a multidisciplinary team categorization tool (eg, primary vs secondary), a modified version of the Social Support Survey, open-ended questions, injury details, and demographic variables. After several rounds of email and in-person recruitment lasting approximately 3 months, 321 Division I student-athletes across 16 NCAA conferences participated in the cross-sectional study. Athletes most commonly placed athletic trainers, athletic coaches, and strength and conditioning coaches on the primary rehabilitation team. Additionally, athletic coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, and teammates were most frequently identified as secondary rehabilitation team members. Overall, mental health support was the most commonly identified item related to missing services. For those that did work with one of these professionals, the main themes that emerged were helpfulness of a safe space and feeling supported beyond sport. This study provided support for the use of the multidisciplinary model of sport injury rehabilitation within the context of college athletics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leatherman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: