MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220798834 · doi:10.1111/josh.13156

Concussion Education in the School Setting: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4220798834 on OpenAlexafffund
Kylie D. Mallory, Lauren Saly, Andrea Hickling, Heather Colquhoun, Emily Kroshus, Nick Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of School Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoBloorview Research Institute
KeywordsConcussionPsycINFOCINAHLContext (archaeology)Poison controlMedicineMedical educationInjury preventionSuicide preventionMEDLINEPsychologyNursingPsychological interventionMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Concussions are a prevalent injury among youth, and concussion education has the potential to promote positive concussion-related behaviors. Recent recommendations and legislation have increased concussion education provided in schools; however, little is known about the education context, delivery method, development, and evaluation. A scoping review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed literature on concussion education delivered in the school setting. METHODS: Six databases were searched (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and ERIC) to identify published articles from 2002 to July 16, 2020 that delivered concussion education in the school setting. Included studies described the concussion education and were written in English. RESULTS: A total of 11,373 articles were identified and screened, with 27 studies meeting eligibility criteria and therefore, included. The studies delivered education to various stakeholders including students (n = 12; 44.4%), coaches (n = 5; 18.5%), educators (n = 3; 11.1%), parents (n = 1; 3.7%), and a mixed audience (n = 6; 22.2%). The education format varied and six studies (22.2%) developed the education based on a theory, model, or framework. CONCLUSIONS: This study found substantial variability in the context, delivery method, development, and evaluation of education delivered in schools and further evaluation of this education is needed to ensure it is best-suited for school-based stakeholders.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0210.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of School HealthSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207