Research priorities for diagnosis, prognosis, and rehabilitation following concussion: results from a national survey of Australian health professionals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recently, the Concussion James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLAPSP) (Canada) identified serious research gaps regarding diagnosis, management, and access to effective rehabilitation for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Our aim was to determine if the same research priorities are important to Australian health professionals working in the concussion/mTBI field. A survey was distributed <i>via</i> professional networks, social media, professional group listservs, a research project noticeboard, and at conferences. It comprised of 25 of the highest ranked concussion research questions from the JLAPSP. We examined how professionals ranked the research questions and analyzed variation in ranking by clinical role and concussion/mTBI work experience. Our sample of 187 participants included medical and allied health professionals. Most participants were occupational therapists (22%), physiotherapists (18%), neuropsychologists (17%), and worked in Victoria (47%), New South Whales (18%), or Queensland (15%) in metropolitan areas. Health professionals ranked three research questions highest: identifying methods to predict prolonged recovery; effectiveness of early referral and treatment by a specialized concussion/mTBI team; and implementation studies on upskilling healthcare workers. The research priorities identified can guide research efforts to improve the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of individuals with concussion/mTBI in Australia. Health professionals with experience in the assessment and rehabilitation of adults with concussions overwhelmingly agree that there is a need for further research to understand the prognosis and the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation clinics.The role of healthcare providers in supporting recovery and the long-term health implications of suffering a concussion was identified as a priority.Both pre-clinical and clinical research are identified priorities to determine the effectiveness of biomarkers for concussion and return to activity.Health professionals also call for clinical trials testing management protocols, and implementation trials to support translation of clinical guidelines into practice to understand the role of healthcare providers in rehabilitation. Health professionals with experience in the assessment and rehabilitation of adults with concussions overwhelmingly agree that there is a need for further research to understand the prognosis and the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation clinics. The role of healthcare providers in supporting recovery and the long-term health implications of suffering a concussion was identified as a priority. Both pre-clinical and clinical research are identified priorities to determine the effectiveness of biomarkers for concussion and return to activity. Health professionals also call for clinical trials testing management protocols, and implementation trials to support translation of clinical guidelines into practice to understand the role of healthcare providers in rehabilitation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».