A-36 Understanding Parental Knowledge of and Attitudes towards Youth Sport-Related Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The study objective was to examine parental knowledge of, and attitudes towards, youth sport-related concussion in a Canadian sample. Method A community sample of seventy-six families (n = 120 children) completed the study questionnaire comprised of demographic and sport history information, as well as questions about concussion knowledge (factual and perceived) and attitudes (i.e. concussion management and treatment attitudes). All participants had children actively involved in sport. Predominantly mothers completed the questionnaire (74%), and families ranged from one-to-three children (M age = 9 yr 5mth, SD = 2 yr 11mth). Results On average, parents achieved 76% accuracy on factual concussion knowledge (M = 21.19, SD = 2.55), with the majority (75%) perceiving their responses as accurate (perceived knowledge). Most parents displayed a favourable attitude toward concussion reporting and management (54/63; 85.7%). Families with low social risk status (SRS) had higher perceived knowledge compared to families with high SRS (t(60) = 2.29, p = .026), but not actual knowledge (p = .87). Mixed linear regression models were used to examine relationships between sociodemographic factors and concussion knowledge and attitudes. Higher SRS (F(1,74) = 9.60, p = .003) was related to lower perceived knowledge. Conclusions Families with higher SRS had less confidence in their youth sport-related concussion knowledge despite having accurate knowledge. Understanding sociodemographic factors associated with concussion attitudes and knowledge is an important first step for informing policies and keeping youth active in sports.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".