“You Can't Fix Your Brain”: Exploring concussion experiences of children and parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the experiences, information needs and preferences of children who have had a concussion and their parents who have cared for them. DESIGN: Qualitative description. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted via Zoom with children who have had a concussion between ages 5 and 16 years and parents who have cared for a child with a concussion. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. RESULTS: Fourteen interviews were conducted with children and parents who have experiences with concussion. Four major themes were identified: (1) mechanism of injury and concussion symptoms experienced by children, (2) parent concerns, emotions, and health care experience with child's concussion, (3) concussions affect more than just your head and, (4) health information seeking, and preferences of parents and children related to concussion. Children and their parents have unique experiences, information needs and preferences regarding concussion. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This information offers valuable insights about developing resources about childhood concussion that parents and children will find useful and relevant. This research has direct relevance to healthcare professionals who may encounter children with concussion in their daily practice so they can ensure the needs of children and families are being met. Our findings will be used to create the content for an innovative knowledge translation tool about pediatric concussion.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".