Concussion prevention: Conflicting attitudes and intentions towards protective behaviours among athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concussion prevention programs aim to reduce concussion incidence and severity by increasing knowledge and awareness about the injury and influencing attitudes and intentions towards protective behaviours. We examined concussion beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards protective behaviour in a cross-sectional survey of 100 varsity athletes (55% male; mean age 20; 61% involved in contact sports; 63% history of concussion, 89% received concussion education). Participants were reasonably accurate in identifying concussion symptoms, generally agreed that concussions had significant personal and social consequences, and effects that could be enduring. Nonetheless, most (57%) were not fearful about experiencing a concussion and, as far as consequences go, concussion was rated as comparable to an anterior cruciate injury. Almost all (93%) believed protective equipment would reduce the risk of concussion but many (66%) indicated they felt safer taking risks when wearing protective equipment. Almost all (95%) indicated that waiting the specified time for recovery was important to avoid further injury, but 76 percent agreed that athletes conceal concussion injury to avoid being taken out of play and 41 percent indicated they would or may conceal concussion injury to return to play. A majority (58%) indicated they would risk suffering a concussion and almost a quarter (23%) indicated they would inflict a concussion on a fellow athlete to succeed in a sport that mattered to them. Stated behavioural intentions modify their contact exposure or style of play to reduce concussion risk. While athlete representation of concussion is largely consistent with the portrayal of injury in prevention programs and the media, much latent contradiction remains in attitudes and intentions towards protective behaviours. Future research and prevention efforts should consider these contradictions and related influences.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".