Parental Awareness and Attitudes Towards ACL Injury Prevention Programs in Youth Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries has steadily increased in young athletes and may have long-term implications for physical function and quality of life. ACL injury prevention programs have been developed and refined over the past several decades and have been shown to reduce the risk of ACL injuries by up to 70%1,2. However, awareness and understanding of these programs among parents of athletes is unknown. This study aims to evaluate knowledge and attitudes towards ACL injury prevention programs for parents of young athletes involved in cutting and pivoting sports at varying levels of competition. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was nationally distributed to a convenience sample of parents of young athletes between the ages of 5 and 18. The survey focused on questions relating to demographic information, history of ACL injury, knowledge of ACL injury prevention programs, and factors influencing program awareness. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and determine prevalence of program awareness. Results: A total of 244 parents completed the survey with 74% indicating their child’s primary sport was soccer. Seventy-seven percent of these athletes began specializing in their primary sport at an average age of 8 years old (SD = 2.72). Only 18% of parents reported knowledge of ACL injury prevention programs and just 6% reported their child has ever participated in one. Of the 29 (12%) athletes who had experienced an ACL injury, only 17% had ever participated in an ACL injury prevention program. The most common reported barrier of ACL injury prevention program participation was the lack of awareness of where to get such training and it not being readily offered to their child. Sixty-eight percent of all parents would have their child participate in an ACL injury prevention program if offered to them. Conclusion: There is a lack of awareness of ACL injury prevention programs among parents of young athletes involved in high injury-risk sports. However, most parents would be interested in their child utilizing an ACL injury prevention program if it were offered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".