Describing High School Stakeholders' Preferences for a Return‐to‐School Framework Following Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Return to school supports are recommended to facilitate adolescents' re-entry to school following a concussion. However, little is known as to what school stakeholders prefer for a return-to-school process. This study sought to describe the preferences of high school students, parents, and educators for a Return-to-School Framework for adolescents following a concussion. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured, 1-on-1 or group interviews with high school students (n = 6), parents (n = 5), and educators (n = 15) from Calgary, Canada. Interviews aimed to describe participants' preferences for a Return-to-School Framework for students following a concussion. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: We organized the data into 4 main themes: (1) purpose of the Return-to-School Framework; (2) format and operation of the Return-to-School Framework; (3) communication about a student's concussion; and (4) necessity of concussion education for students and educators. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH POLICY, PRACTICE, AND EQUITY: A Return-to-School Framework following concussion should be developed in consultation with families, educators, and students and supports should be tailored to each student. CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferred a standardized and consistent Return-to-School Framework including ongoing communication between stakeholders as well as feasible and individualized school supports.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".