Advertisement

Return to Sport Decision-Based Models

  • Ian ShrierEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Historically, return to sport (RTS) decisions were considered a complex process with many interacting factors and stakeholders. Although the ultimate goal was always to maximize the best interests of the athlete, different clinicians would come to different recommendations for RTS leading to a prevailing opinion that RTS decisions required an objective process. In this chapter, I mostly focus on the Bayesian Decision Theoretic approach applied to RTS decisions, known as the Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT). This model treats RTS decisions the same as other decisions involving risk. There is a factual component (assessment of risk) and a subjective component (risk tolerance). Differences in recommendations that are based on risk assessment can be resolved through careful review of facts or future research. Differences in recommendations that are based on risk tolerance are inevitable and have implications regarding who should have the ultimate decision-making power, even in a shared decision-making framework. Finally, RTS decision-making is done within the larger context of an athlete with a long career. In this context, RTS decisions are really about deciding what level of activity is appropriate for a given athlete following an injury. The process should be similar to deciding what level of activity is appropriate at other times, although the expertise to assess risk may lie with different stakeholders.

Keywords

Return to sport Risk assessment Injury Shared decision-making Risk tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

  • Jay Mellette of the Vegas Golden Knights for developing the concept behind the FAIR model

  • Lyn Charland for creating the acronyms StARRT (Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance) and FAIR (From Activity to Injury and Rehabilitation/Reintegration)

References

  1. 1.
    The team physician and return-to-play issues: a consensus statement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(7):1212–4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiese-Bjornstal DM, Smith AM, Shaffer SM, et al. An integrated model of response to sport injury: psychological and sociological dynamics. J Appl Sport Psych. 1998;10:46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roderick M, editor. The world of professional football. London: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Safai P. Negotiating with risk: exploring the role of the sports medicine clinician. In: Young K, editor. Sporting bodies, damaged selves: sociological studies of sports-related injury. Oxford: Elsevier; 2004. p. 269–86.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Safai P. Sports medicine, health, and the politics of risk. In: Andrews DL, Carrington B, editors. A companion to sport. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 112–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malcolm D. Medical uncertainty and clinician-athlete relations: the management of concussion injuries in rugby union. Sociol Sport J. 2009;26(2):191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shrier I. The strategic assessment of risk and risk tolerance (StARRT) framework for return to play decision making. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:1311–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Creighton DW, Shrier I, Shultz R, et al. Return-to-play in sport: a decision-based model. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(5):379–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shultz R, Bido J, Shrier I, et al. Team clinician variability in return-to-play decisions. Clin J Sport Med. 2013;23(6):456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shrier I, Matheson GO, Boudier-Riveret M, et al. Validating the 3-step return to play decision model. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(2):e231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pincus T, Kent P, Bronfort G, et al. Twenty-five years with the biopsychosocial model of low Back pain – is it time to celebrate? A report from the twelfth international forum for primary care research on low Back pain. Spine. 2013;38(24):2118–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ayers DC, Franklin PD, Ring DC. The role of emotional health in functional outcomes after orthopaedic surgery: extending the biopsychosocial model to orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(21):e165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkins E, Colville G, John M. A ‘biopsychosocial’ model for recovery: a grounded theory study of families’ journeys after a paediatric intensive care admission. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2012;28(3):133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ardern CL, Glasgow P, Schneiders A, et al. 2016 consensus statement on return to sport from the first world congress in sports physical therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(14):853–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, et al. Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(21):1543–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reyna VF, Rivers SE. Current theories of risk and rational decision making. Dev Rev. 2008;28:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ashby D, Smith AF. Evidence-based medicine as Bayesian decision-making. Stat Med. 2000;19:3291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shakespeare TP, Gebski VJ, Veness MJ, et al. Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk-benefit contours. Lancet. 2001;357(9265):1349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shrier I. Muscle dysfunction versus wear-and-tear as a cause of osteoarthritis: an epidemiological update. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shrier I, Safai P, Charland L. Return-to-play following injury: whose decision should it be? Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Risk assessment tool for estimating your 10-year risk of having a heart attack. 2013. http://cvdrisk.nhlbi.nih.gov/. Last accessed: 12 Dec 2014.
  22. 22.
    Gabe J, Bury M, Elston MA, editors. Key concepts in medical sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Safai P. Healing the body in the “culture of risk”: examining the negotiation of treatment between sport medicine clinicians and injured athletes in Canadian Intercollegiate Sport. Sociol Sport J. 2003;20:127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McFarland EG. Return to play. Clin Sports Med. 2004;23:xv–xxiii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young K, White P, McTeer W. Body talk: male athletes reflect on sport, injury, and pain. Sociol Sport J. 1994;11:175–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Podlog L, Eklund RC. A longitudinal investigation of competitive athletes’ return to sport following serious injury. J Appl Sport Psych. 2006;18(1):44–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nixon HL. Accepting the risks of pain and injury in sport: mediated cultural influences of playing hurt. Sociol Sport J. 1993;10:183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Podlog L, Eklund RC. Professional coaches’ perspectives on the return to sport following serious injury. J Appl Sport Psych. 2007;19(2):207–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Podlog L, Eklund RC. The psychosocial aspects of a return to sport following serious injury: a review of the literature from a self-determination perspective. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2007;8:535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nixon HL. Coaches’ views of risk, pain, and injury in sport, with special reference to gender differences. Sociol Sport J. 1994;11:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Churchill W. Speech in the house of commons. The official report, house of commons, 5th series, vol. 444. 1947. p. 206–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Clinical EpidemiologyJewish General HospitalQCCanada

Personalised recommendations