Loss and recovery after concussion: Adolescent patients give voice to their concussion experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most concussion studies have focused on the perspectives and expertise of health-care providers and caregivers. Very little qualitative research has been done, engaging the adolescents who have suffered concussion and continue to experience the consequences in their everyday life. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of recovery from the perspective of adolescent patients of concussion and to present the findings through their voices. METHODS: Two semi-structured focus groups and two narrative interviews were conducted with a small group of 7 adolescents. Grounded theory was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants experience continuing difficulty 1-5 years after treatment with cognitive, emotional, social and mental well-being. The overriding experience among older adolescents (17-20) is a sense of irreversibility of the impact of concussion in all these areas. CONCLUSION: There is a significant gap between the medical determination of recovery and what patients understand as recovery. Adolescents do not feel 'recovered' more than a year after they are clinically assessed as 'good to go'. Systematic follow-up and support from a multi-disciplinary health-care team would strengthen youths' coping and resilience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".