A qualitative review of sports concussion education: prime time for evidence-based knowledge translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Educating athletes, coaches, parents and healthcare providers about concussion management is a public health priority. There is an abundance of information on sports concussions supported by position statements from governing sport and medical organisations. Yet surveys of athletes, parents, coaches and healthcare providers continue to identify multiple barriers to the successful management of sports concussion. To date, efforts to provide education using empirically sound methodologies are lacking. PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of scientific research on concussion education efforts and make recommendations for enhancing these efforts. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative literature review of sports concussion education. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Sport Discus and MEDLINE were searched using standardised terms, alone and in combination, including 'concussion', 'sport', 'knowledge', 'education' and 'outcome'. RESULTS: Studies measuring the success of education interventions suggest that simply presenting available information may help to increase knowledge about concussions, but it does not produce long-term changes in behaviour among athletes. Currently, no empirical reviews have evaluated the success of commercially available sports concussion applications. The most successful education efforts have taken steps to ensure materials are user-friendly, interactive, utilise more than one modality to present information and are embedded in mandated training programmes or support legislation. Psychosocial theory-driven methods used to understand and improve 'buy in' from intended audiences have shown promise in changing behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: More deliberate and methodologically sound steps must be taken to optimise education and knowledge translation efforts in sports concussion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".