11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Framework for Clinicians to Improve the Decision-Making Process in Return to Sport

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Return-to-sport (RTS) decisions are critical to clinical sports medicine and are often characterised by uncertainties, such as re-injury risk, time pressure induced by competition schedule and social stress from coaches, families and supporters. RTS decisions have implications not only for the health and performance of an athlete, but also the sports organisation. RTS decision-making is a complex process, which relies on evaluating multiple biopsychosocial factors, and is influenced by contextual factors. In this narrative review, we outline how RTS decision-making of clinicians could be evaluated from a decision analysis perspective. To begin with, the RTS decision could be explained as a sequence of steps, with a decision basis as the core component. We first elucidate the methodological considerations in gathering information from RTS tests. Second, we identify how decision-making frameworks have evolved and adapt decision-making theories to the RTS context. Third, we discuss the preferences and perspectives of the athlete, performance coach and manager. We conclude by proposing a framework for clinicians to improve the quality of RTS decisions and make recommendations for daily practice and research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references129

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

          This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgements and decisions in situations of uncertainty.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Shared Decision Making: A Model for Clinical Practice

              The principles of shared decision making are well documented but there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish the approach in routine clinical practice. Our aim here is to translate existing conceptual descriptions into a three-step model that is practical, easy to remember, and can act as a guide to skill development. Achieving shared decision making depends on building a good relationship in the clinical encounter so that information is shared and patients are supported to deliberate and express their preferences and views during the decision making process. To accomplish these tasks, we propose a model of how to do shared decision making that is based on choice, option and decision talk. The model has three steps: a) introducing choice, b) describing options, often by integrating the use of patient decision support, and c) helping patients explore preferences and make decisions. This model rests on supporting a process of deliberation, and on understanding that decisions should be influenced by exploring and respecting “what matters most” to patients as individuals, and that this exploration in turn depends on them developing informed preferences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kai.yung@live.vu.edu.au
                Journal
                Sports Med Open
                Sports Med Open
                Sports Medicine - Open
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                2199-1170
                2198-9761
                13 April 2022
                13 April 2022
                December 2022
                : 8
                : 52
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1019.9, ISNI 0000 0001 0396 9544, Institute for Health and Sport, , Victoria University, ; Melbourne, Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.445308.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0460 3941, Musculoskeletal and Sports Injury Epidemiology Centre, Department of Health Promotion Science, , Sophiahemmet University, ; Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]GRID grid.1018.8, ISNI 0000 0001 2342 0938, Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, , La Trobe University, ; Melbourne, Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.17091.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, Department of Family Practice, , University of British Columbia, ; Vancouver, Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1906-4111
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8102-3631
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8919-3053
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8330-0011
                Article
                440
                10.1186/s40798-022-00440-z
                9008084
                35416633
                28a6f6ae-1ccf-4627-ad4b-d077bd016029
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 June 2021
                : 23 March 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Victoria University
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                decision-making,decision,return to play,decision analysis,rehabilitation,rts,rtp

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content251

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors1,140