CONTEXT: Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after injury is important. Differences in HRQOL between nonathletes and athletes and between injured and uninjured athletes have been demonstrated; however, the evidence has not been synthesized. OBJECTIVE: To answer the following questions: (1) Does HRQOL differ among adolescent and collegiate athletes and nonathletes? (2) Does HRQOL differ between injured adolescent and collegiate athletes or between athletes with a history of injury and uninjured athletes or those without a history of injury? DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. A hand search of references was also conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they used generic instruments to compare HRQOL outcomes between athletes and nonathletes and between uninjured and injured athletes. Studies were excluded if they did not use a generic instrument, pertained to instrument development, or included retired athletes or athletes with a chronic disease. DATA EXTRACTION: We assessed study quality using the modified Downs and Black Index Tool. Bias-corrected Hedges g effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) was used to determine the overall strength of the recommendation. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all studies using the composite or total score. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies with modified Downs and Black scores ranging from 70.6% to 88.4% were included. For question 1, the overall random-effects meta-analysis was weak (effect size = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.14, 0.40; P < .001). For question 2, the overall random-effects meta-analysis was moderate (effect size = 0.68, 95% confidence interval = 0.42, 0.95; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Grade A evidence indicates that athletes reported better HRQOL than nonathletes and that uninjured athletes reported better HRQOL than injured athletes. However, the overall effect for question 1 was weak, suggesting that the differences between athletes and nonathletes may not be clinically meaningful. Clinicians should monitor HRQOL after injury to ensure that all dimensions of health are appropriately treated.
CONTEXT: Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after injury is important. Differences in HRQOL between nonathletes and athletes and between injured and uninjured athletes have been demonstrated; however, the evidence has not been synthesized. OBJECTIVE: To answer the following questions: (1) Does HRQOL differ among adolescent and collegiate athletes and nonathletes? (2) Does HRQOL differ between injured adolescent and collegiate athletes or between athletes with a history of injury and uninjured athletes or those without a history of injury? DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. A hand search of references was also conducted. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they used generic instruments to compare HRQOL outcomes between athletes and nonathletes and between uninjured and injured athletes. Studies were excluded if they did not use a generic instrument, pertained to instrument development, or included retired athletes or athletes with a chronic disease. DATA EXTRACTION: We assessed study quality using the modified Downs and Black Index Tool. Bias-corrected Hedges g effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) was used to determine the overall strength of the recommendation. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all studies using the composite or total score. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies with modified Downs and Black scores ranging from 70.6% to 88.4% were included. For question 1, the overall random-effects meta-analysis was weak (effect size = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.14, 0.40; P < .001). For question 2, the overall random-effects meta-analysis was moderate (effect size = 0.68, 95% confidence interval = 0.42, 0.95; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Grade A evidence indicates that athletes reported better HRQOL than nonathletes and that uninjured athletes reported better HRQOL than injured athletes. However, the overall effect for question 1 was weak, suggesting that the differences between athletes and nonathletes may not be clinically meaningful. Clinicians should monitor HRQOL after injury to ensure that all dimensions of health are appropriately treated.
Entities:
Keywords:
athletic injuries; patient outcomes; patient-centered care
Authors: Tamara C Valovich McLeod; R Curtis Bay; John T Parsons; Eric L Sauers; Alison R Snyder Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Kyle B Kosik; Nathan F Johnson; Masafumi Terada; Abbey C Thomas-Fenwick; Carl G Mattacola; Phillip A Gribble Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Andrew M Watson; Kevin Biese; Claudia Reardon; Allison Schwarz; Kristin Haraldsdottir; M Alison Brooks; David R Bell; Timothy McGuine Journal: medRxiv Date: 2022-01-11
Authors: Nirmala Kanthi Panagodage Perera; Maja R Radojčić; Stephanie R Filbay; Steffan A Griffin; Lucy Gates; Andrew Murray; Roger Hawkes; Nigel K Arden Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrew Watson; Timothy McGuine; Pamela Lang; Eric Post; Kevin Biese; Stephanie Kliethermes; M Alison Brooks; David Bell Journal: Sports Health Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Garrett S Bullock; Gary S Collins; Nick Peirce; Nigel K Arden; Stephanie R Filbay Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 3.186