Background Psychological processes have been associated with the risk of sports injury. However, different psychological processes can be related to different injury characteristics based on their modes of onset, severity or number. Objective To cluster injury characteristics and identify the links with psychological processes in elite athletes practicing sports involving sprints. Design Transversal study. Setting Elite level. Participants 90 elite athletes (53% women; age = 24.4 ± 3.9 years) from the Athletics (track and field) and Rugby federations. Main outcome measurements Participants were invited to fill online questionnaires for sport-related injuries, and a set of psychometric questionnaires (i.e., anxiety, impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, self-efficacy, eating disorders, motivation, optimism). K-means clustering was performed on lifetime injury characteristics (number of injuries, mode of onset and severity) of the participants. Psychological characteristics were compared between injury profiles. Results Six clusters of injuries were found. Two clusters showed a large number of differences in psychological characteristics. Participants from the clusters of high level of injury severity with sudden onset displayed high scores of intrinsic forms of motivation, anxiety, impulsivity and optimism, and low scores of extrinsic forms of motivation and emotion dysregulation. The cluster of low number of injuries showed high impulsivity and optimism, and low scores of eating disorders. Conclusions This study provides an innovative approach to understand the relationships between sports injuries and psychological processes, with practical implications for sports injury prevention. Indeed, the results highlight that highly motivated and impulsive athletes may be at higher risk of sustaining severe injuries with a sudden onset. Given that each injury has unique characteristics and associations with psychological processes, stakeholders may take these into account in order to provide the athlete with the most effective care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruffault et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: