Psychoeducational Interventions and Postconcussive Recovery in Children and Adolescents: A Rapid Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this rapid systematic review was to identify and synthesize results of empirical studies that have examined psychoeducational interventions provided to children and adolescents aged 5-19 recovering from a concussion and their families. METHODS: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines adjusted for a rapid systematic review. We searched three databases (EMBASE, PsycInfo and MEDLINE) with key terms for concussion (or mild traumatic brain injury - mTBI), the intervention (psychoeducation, instructions, and reassurance) and the target population (children and adolescents aged 5 to 19). Our search strategy generated 2225 unique records and seven were included. We performed a quality appraisal on the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Results indicated that psychoeducational interventions had satisfactory feasibility results. Caregivers generally found the intervention to be useful to determine return to play (n=2) and understand consequences following a concussion (n=1). However, results from studies on post-concussive symptom improvement (n=4) and post-intervention concussion knowledge (n=2) showed variability and mixed findings. Methodological quality was low for most studies. CONCLUSIONS: This present review shows that there are very few published studies on psychoeducational interventions offered to children, adolescents, and families for the post-concussion management. Current evidence suggests that those interventions are useful in guiding caregivers during their child's recovery. However, the impact of psychoeducational interventions on post-concussive recovery seems to be less clear.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".