The Impact of a Concussion-U Educational Program on Knowledge of and Attitudes about Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of a sports-related concussion is often dependent on the athlete self-reporting their symptoms. It has been suggested that improving youth athlete knowledge and attitudes toward concussion may increase self-reporting behaviour. The objective of this study was to determine if a novel Concussion-U educational program improves knowledge of and attitudes about concussion among a cohort of elite male Bantam and Midget AAA hockey players. METHODS: Fifty-seven male Bantam and Midget AAA-level hockey players (mean age=14.52±1.13 years) were recruited from the local community. Each participant completed a modified version of the Rosenbaum Concussion Knowledge and Attitudes Survey-Student Version immediately before and after a Concussion-U educational presentation. Follow-up sessions were arranged 4 to 6 months after the presentation, and assessed retention of knowledge and attitude changes. RESULTS: Forty-three players completed all three surveys. Concussion knowledge and attitude scores significantly (p<0.01) increased from pre- to post-presentation by 12.79 and 8.41%, respectively. At long-term follow-up, knowledge levels remained significantly (p<0.01) higher than baseline by 8.49%. Mean attitude scores were also increased at follow-up; however, this increase was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A Concussion-U educational program led to an immediate improvement in concussion knowledge and attitudes among elite male Bantam and Midget AAA hockey players. Increased knowledge was maintained at long-term follow-up, but improved attitude was not. Future studies should investigate whether similar educational programs influence symptom reporting and concussion incidence. In addition, they should focus on how to maintain improved concussion attitudes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".