MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7161982724 · doi:10.82308/46890

The development and implementation of a concussion education program for high school student-athletes

2016· dissertation· en· W7161982724 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Caron

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConcussionAthletesPsychological interventionQualitative researchSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison control

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Concussions are the most frequently occurring brain injury in sports (Carroll & Rosner, 2012), and the injury can be particularly problematic for adolescent athletes because of their developing brains (Carman et al., 2015). As a result, experts have highlighted the importance of improving athletes' knowledge of concussions to improve their health and safety (McCrory et al., 2013). Despite this, there is no consensus regarding the most effective way to disseminate concussion knowledge (Mrazik et al., 2015). The purpose of this dissertation was to develop and implement a concussion education program for high school student-athletes in Eastern Canada. This was accomplished through a cohesive series of four original manuscripts. The first manuscript was a review paper that investigated literature on concussion education programs. Results revealed there have been three types of concussion education programs to date: interactive oral presentations, educational videos, and computer-based learning programs. However, these interventions have been limited by the dissemination of knowledge at one time-point only and by minimally implementing qualitative methods. The second manuscript was a qualitative study that explored high school coaches' insights and perceptions of concussions. The coaches said they taught athletes skills during practices and games to improve their safety and well-being, which they said they valued more than winning championships. Coaches also mentioned that some of their athletes were occasionally disingenuous when reporting concussion symptoms. The third manuscript was a qualitative study that gathered high school athletes' insights on concussions, including the mediums through which they acquired information about the injury. Results revealed the high school athletes primarily acquired information about concussions through interactions with peers and family members, media reports involving professional athletes, and school projects. Additionally, the athletes noted they attempted to deceive coaches and health professionals about concussions, a finding that was related to the coaches' perceptions in study two. Results from the first three manuscripts were used to create a concussion education program for high school athletes. Thus, the fourth manuscript investigated a concussion education program for high school athletes, which consisted of four interactive oral presentations that were evaluated using a mixed method design. The results revealed improvements in participants' knowledge of concussions after exposure to the concussion education program. Participants also indicated the concussion education program might influence their future in-game behaviors, such as avoiding dangerous collisions. Furthermore, the athletes said they enjoyed the interactive nature of the presentations and the use of case study examples. In sum, this dissertation contributes to the research and practice of concussion education in many ways. To our knowledge, it is the first program of research to systematically develop and implement a concussion education program for high school athletes. Results from this dissertation indicated that interactive oral presentations were an effective strategy to disseminate concussion information to high school athletes, and provides recommendations for future research in this still underdeveloped domain.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,094
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,187

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,450
Écart entre enseignants0,415 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetTraumatic Brain Injury Research→Travaux en français237 207→