A novel clinical practice tool increases patients’ understanding of concussion care within an inter-disciplinary clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Concussion patients who experience prolonged symptoms may benefit from evidence-based, physician-led, inter-disciplinary care. The success of this approach may depend on a patient’s understanding and adherence to a complex, multi-modal recovery process. Objectives We have developed a novel clinical care guide for post-injury concussion caretermed the “Treatment Passport,” intended to facilitate greater communication and understanding among patients, healthcare providers, family members, teachers, and coaches. This study aims to assess whether the Treatment Passport increases patients’ understanding of their concussion care in an inter-disciplinary setting. Methods Patients presenting with sports- or recreation-related concussions were randomly assigned to the intervention ( n = 15) or control ( n = 18) group. Subjects in the control group received physician-led, inter-disciplinary care, while subjects in the intervention group received the same care, but with the addition of the Treatment Passport. After four weeks of treatment, participants in both groups completed an 11-question survey to assess their understanding of inter-disciplinary concussion care. Results The median age of participants was 20 (range 10–63). Participants in the intervention group showed significant increases in their understanding of inter-disciplinary concussion care when compared to control group members. This was reflected in a 2.1–2.8-fold greater understanding of the cognitive, physical, and vestibular aspects of their care. In addition, 86.7% of control group participants indicated they believed that the Treatment Passport would have helped with their concussion recovery journey. Conclusion The Treatment Passport is a novel clinical tool that facilitates the delivery of standardized inter-disciplinary concussion care by increasing patient-caregiver communication and understanding.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".