THE DEVELOPMENT OF INJURY PREVENTION EDUCATIONAL TOOLS FOR EVALUATION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS IN SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY SETTINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Educational resources are important tools in the implementation of sport injury prevention strategies to help foster uptake of information in a community setting; however, there is limited information on how these tools are developed. Objective To develop two injury prevention educational tools targeting children and adolescents for evaluation in school and community settings. Design Qualitative. Setting Schools and ski/snowboard facilities in Calgary, Canada. Participants Key informants, including: 1) Community stakeholders from school and ski/snowboard settings, 2) Students ages 9–14 years, and 3) Ski/snowboard instructors, safety patrols and physical education (PE) specialists. Interventions Semi-structured focus groups and surveys were conducted with key stakeholders to explore pre-understandings, relevant content, delivery methods, and format of the tools. Consultations with community partners, PE specialists and ski/snowboard instructors and patrols helped further inform content and format during the development process. Main Outcome Measurements Videos and posters were developed based on feedback and discussions with key informants. These tools were designed as educational resources for teacher and student evaluation in two injury prevention studies. Results Videos were the main tools developed for the school-based delivery; including content about a neuromuscular training program and ski/snowboard safety strategies targeting injury prevention in youth sport. Focus group participants and informants emphasized the importance of understanding the target audience and adapting content and delivery approaches that increase the likelihood of successful uptake of key messages. This included communicating information in a clear and concise manner and utilizing visual and auditory cues to accommodate multiple learning styles. A health behaviour framework (i.e., Health Action Process Approach) was used to inform tool development. Conclusions Engaging informants supported the development of sport injury prevention educational tools. These tools are being utilized in studies evaluating their effectiveness in increasing knowledge, changing behaviour and reducing the risk of sport-related injury in school and community settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".