Systematic review reveals multidimensional reinjury concerns in athletes post-ACL injury, suggesting improved clinical assessment methods.
OBJECTIVE: To explore athletes’ experiences of ‘reinjury concerns’ in those with lived experience of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury. DESIGN: Systematic Review with Qualitative evidence synthesis. LITERATURE SEARCH: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations were searched until January 2025. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently and in parallel screened studies for inclusion if they were: (1) Qualitative or mixed-methods; (2) included participants who were athletes with lived experience of an ACL injury; (3) reported the phenomenon of interest, ‘reinjury concerns’, within the findings; and (4) published in English. DATA SYNTHESIS: We applied thematic synthesis based on Thomas and Harden’s approach aligned to a constructivist paradigm, and followed relevant checklists for performing and reporting a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Confidence in the findings was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual). RESULTS: Forty-five studies were included, comprising 611 participants. Themes described how athletes assessed the threat of reinjury (theme one), experienced reinjury concerns across a multidimensional spectrum (theme two), and coped with reinjury concerns (theme three). Confidence in the findings was mostly rated moderate-high according to the GRADE-CERQual assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes’ experiences of reinjury concerns after ACL injury were multidimensional and shaped by individual beliefs and contexts. Our findings support shifting from the narrow construct ‘ fear of reinjury’ toward a broader conceptualisation of reinjury concerns that more accurately reflects athletes’ lived experiences and may better inform assessment and clinical approaches after ACL injury.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Starcevich et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: