MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206072351 · doi:10.2196/preprints.20311

An environmental scan of Canadian Internet resources and Apps about pediatric concussion. (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4206072351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alyson Campbell, Vickie Plourde, Lisa Hartling, Arjun Bains, Shannon D. Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionThe InternetInclusion (mineral)Resource (disambiguation)Internet privacyMedicineMedical educationWorld Wide WebPsychologyPoison controlComputer scienceInjury preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Concussions are complex injuries affecting millions of children worldwide. Various organizations have developed educational supports about childhood concussions in a variety of formats including handouts, training tools and videos. Despite the plethora of resources available, uncertainty in how to manage childhood concussions prevails, and knowing which resources are relevant and accurate can be confusing. For many Canadians the Internet and smartphone applications are easily accessible and offer information pertinent to one’s health and well-being, including those suffering from concussion. However, research is needed to discover information gaps in relation to these Internet resources and Apps to reduce future resource redundancies and improve knowledge translation, ultimately improving concussion care and outcomes for children and families. OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to identify Canadian-based Internet resources and Apps for pediatric concussion, extract information about each resource to identify gaps, and assess these resources for suitability. METHODS We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian-based Internet resources and Apps on pediatric concussion. Three main sources were sequentially searched: The Internet (Google) and two App stores (Apple, Google Play). Interviews with key informants from Canadian concussion organizations were conducted to further inquire about resources. Resources meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). RESULTS 300 Internet websites and 200 apps were searched. A total of 53 resources (51 web-based resources and 2 Apps) met the inclusion criteria. Target audiences included parents (n=11), health care professionals (n=6), teachers (n=5), coaches (n=3), and youth (n=2). Twenty-six resources did not have a specified target audience. Symptoms (n=35), treatment (n=28) and return-to-play (n=24) information was the most common. The most common formats were PDFs (n=20) and infographics (n=8). SAM scores ranged from 36.8% to 97.2%. CONCLUSIONS A limited number of resources were developed specifically for children or youth who have sustained concussions, and those that did were sport specific. Only one resource shared a patient or family experience with concussion. Future resources aiming to improve the knowledge and awareness of pediatric concussions require more inclusivity beyond the athletic community. Additionally, the knowledge and perspectives of those using these resources should be incorporated into their development to enhance relevance, cultural appropriateness and sensemaking. More creative and innovative formats may also enhance the overall usefulness and effectiveness of these resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0160.030
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→