Outlining the Invisible: Experiences and Perspectives Regarding Concussion Recovery, Return-to-Work, and Resource Gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appropriate supports and accommodations are necessary to ensure full concussion recovery and return-to-work (RTW). This research investigated barriers and facilitators to concussion recovery and RTW, and resource gaps reported by adults with concussion (‘workers’) and workplace and healthcare professionals (‘workplaces’). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with workers (n = 31) and workplaces (n = 16) across British Columbia. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Facilitators to workers’ concussion recovery and RTW included treatment, social support, and workplace and lifestyle modifications. To address barriers, both groups recommended: (a) widespread concussion and RTW education and training (b) standardized concussion recovery guidelines; (c) changing attitudes toward concussion; (d) mental health supports; and (e) increasing awareness that every concussion is unique. Findings can inform best practice for concussion recovery and RTW among professionals in workplaces, healthcare, occupational health and safety, and workers’ compensation boards.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".