The awareness of injury prevention programmes is insufficient among French‐ and German‐speaking sports medicine communities in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluate the current state of sports injury prevention perception, knowledge and practice among sports medicine professionals located in Western Europe and involved in injury prevention. METHODS: Members of two different sports medicine organizations (GOTS and ReFORM) were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire (in German and in French, respectively) addressing perception, knowledge and implementation of sports injury prevention through 22 questions. RESULTS: 766 participants from a dozen of countries completed the survey. Among them, 43% were surgeons, 23% sport physicians and 18% physiotherapists working mainly in France (38%), Germany (23%) and Belgium (10%). The sample rated the importance of injury prevention as "high" or "very high" in a majority of cases (91%), but only 54% reported to be aware of specific injury prevention programmes. The French-speaking world was characterized by lower levels of reported knowledge, unfamiliarity with existing prevention programmes and less weekly time spent on prevention as compared to their German-speaking counterparts. Injury prevention barriers reported by the respondents included mainly insufficient expertise, absence of staff support from sports organizations and lack of time. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of awareness regarding injury prevention concepts among sports medicine professionals of the European French- and German-speaking world. This gap varied according to the professional occupation and working country. Relevant future paths for improvement include specific efforts to build awareness around sports injury prevention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".