Background and Objectives: Judo is an Olympic contact sport with a high risk of injury owing to its physical, technical, and competitive demands. The role of psychological factors in recovery and Return to Sport (RTS), such as kinesiophobia and self-perception, is key in the injury process. These factors influence both the success and timing of return and are affected by variables such as locus of control, previous experience, and contextual factors. This study sought to analyse the relationship between sociodemographic, clinical, sports, and psychological variables with kinesiophobia and self-perception of RTS to identify psychological profiles. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at the Centro de Alto Rendimiento de Judo (CEAR) in Valencia, Spain; involving 51 high-performance judokas (mean age 23.0 ± 3.8 years) competing at national or international level who were injured, out of competition or in the process of returning to training or competition. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. Psychological variables were assessed using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) and the Psychological Readiness of Injured Athlete to Return to Sport (PRIA-RS) questionnaire. Results: No significant associations were found between sociodemographic, clinical–sports, and psychological variables (p > 0.05). The mean TSK-11 and PRIA-RS scores were 25.02 ± 5.79 and 36.49 ± 5.29, respectively. Cluster analysis identified three differentiated psychological profiles: one with high kinesiophobia, longer injury and time away from competition, and lower self-perceived readiness to RTS (n = 16); a second with lower fear, the lowest readiness, younger age, and shorter recovery time (n = 17); and a third with the lowest kinesiophobia, highest readiness, older age, and intermediate injury-related time (n = 18). Conclusions: Three psychological profiles were identified: young judokas with low self-perceived readiness to Return to Sport (RTS) and low kinesiophobia; older judokas with high readiness and minimal kinesiophobia; and a more vulnerable group with longer recovery times, high kinesiophobia, and low self-perceived readiness to RTS. Further studies with additional specific variables and biopsychosocial approaches are needed.

Background/Objectives: Persistent spinal pain, including chronic low back pain (CLBP), chronic neck pain, and whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition. The recent literature emphasizes a biopsychosocial framework, acknowledging that altered pain processing, psychological impairments, and autonomic nervous system dysfunction are associated with chronic pain. However, the concurrent within-sample relationships between these domains remain poorly understood and inconsistently reported. To systematically evaluate the associations among physiological autonomic measures, validated psychosocial scales, and pressure algometry in adults with persistent spinal pain. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL) for studies evaluating all three domains within the same cohort. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed articles published in English and Spanish. Two independent blinded reviewers screened and selected the studies. Eligible studies evaluated within-sample relationships across three domains: autonomic indices (e.g., heart rate variability (HRV) and blood pressure (BP)), psychosocial factors (e.g., kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing), and quantitative sensory testing (QST) (e.g., pressure pain threshold (PPTs)). Quality assessment was performed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tools. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, the data were synthesized narratively. Results: Six studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The narrative synthesis revealed a preliminary pattern showing that objective functional outcomes and experimental pain processing tend to show closer associations with autonomic proxies (such as heart rate variability), whereas subjective clinical outcomes (such as perceived disability) are more consistently linked to psychosocial factors (such as kinesiophobia and catastrophizing). Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest potentially distinct domain-specific associations rather than a uniform pathophysiological mechanism. Future specialized research and research-informed practice should incorporate multimodal assessments to better characterize individual patient profiles.