Social support during youth concussion recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We explored the lived experience of high-school aged girls receiving social support during concussion recovery to better understand (1) how they define meaningful social support and barriers/facilitators to receiving it; (2) who provides that support; and (3) the role of peers. METHODS: In person, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 girls (aged 14-19 years) with a personal history of concussion. RESULTS: Close friends, youth with personal history of concussion, and parents were identified as key providers of meaningful social support during concussion recovery. Participants identified specific examples of support provided by each group. Close friends built a sense of social inclusion that mitigated feelings of social isolation. Youth with a personal history of concussion used their lived experiences to communicate empathy and validate the participant's challenges. Parents assisted with practical challenges (e.g. accessing accommodations) by leveraging their "adult power". Participants identified that lack of understanding of their lived experiences was a key barrier to receiving support. They proposed solutions focused on education initiatives highlighting personal accounts from youth with concussion, and specific examples of how peers can help. CONCLUSIONS: Fostering social support may require strategies tailored to each group of key providers as they mitigate different challenges in recovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".