Factors Influencing the Underreporting of Concussion in Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study is to identify factors contributing to underreporting of concussion in adolescent athletes. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews. SETTING: Participants were interviewed in an office environment. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 31 minor hockey players, 10 parents, 6 coaches, 4 trainers, 2 managers, and one game official. Players were 13 to 15 year old. With selective sampling, an inductive approach of analyzing the interviews was undertaken and themes were identified and analyzed. ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: Underreporting is a complex phenomenon. A number of risk factors related to hockey culture, players, reference others, and rules of play were assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons not reporting concussion is accepted in minor hockey. RESULTS: Aspects of hockey culture such as an overemphasis on winning games and upheld misperceptions about the risks associated with concussion were identified as relevant to the underreporting of concussions. Various factors relevant to the underreporting of concussions include player's motivation to win, group membership dynamics such as a player's role as the team's "enforcer," coaches' own motivation to win to further their own opportunities in the sport, and parents' personal financial interest or alternative agenda in terms of time commitments and their child's future career prospects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that underreporting of concussion among those players interviewed appears to be prevalent and associated with misconceptions about injury risk, and a culture that both reinforces and encourages underreporting with tacit or overt complicity of parents and coaches. Our findings support the need to alter the culture of violence and tough play in hockey by education, rule changes, economic measures, and changes in governance of the sport. Interviewing more stakeholders and policy makers would shed light on such potential interventions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".