Student Athletic Therapists' Knowledge of Opioids and Other Pain-Relieving Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context In their role as health care providers, student athletic therapists (SATs) are responsible for the prevention and management of injuries. To fully understand an injury, SATs require knowledge of contributing factors, including medications and their use and misuse. Opioid misuse by athletes to manage pain has been documented in the literature, highlighting the importance of SATs being able to recognize opioid use and misuse. Opioids are known to alleviate pain, to impair cognition, and to have addictive qualities which prevents appropriate assessment and management of injuries. Objective The objective of this study was to understand SATs' knowledge of pain-relieving medication, particularly opioids. Design Qualitative study. Setting Semistructured interview. Patients or Other Participants SATs at an accredited institution in Canada. Data Synthesis Data were collected through interviews and transcribed. Themes were developed using triangulation that reflected the data Results Four themes were uncovered: (1) SATs had experienced both personal and professional use of opioids, which formulated their current knowledge; (2) SATs lacked appropriate knowledge of pain-relieving medications in general and of the potential consequences of their lack of knowledge; (3) SATs' knowledge stemmed from culture, social media, and news organizations; (4) SATs felt considerable pressure to provide correct information due to their autonomous role with a team. Conclusions SATs lacked enough knowledge to be able to appropriately recognize and advise athletes on pain-relieving medications, particularly opioids. SATs formulated their knowledge and opinions from sources that were not rooted in research and as such may transfer incorrect information to their athletes. SATs stigmatized athletes who were using pain-relieving medication, which may factor into inappropriate decisions regarding an athlete's care. Finally, SATs carried a significant burden to share correct information with their athletes and did not refer to outside sources (eg, physicians) when they were unsure of the information they were sharing with their athletes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".