11.26 State of knowledge and current practices regarding concussion prevention and management: a survey among >2000 french-speaking stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the current state of knowledge and practice regarding sport-related concussion (SRC) within a Francophone international consortium in order to tailor the educational approaches. Design Multicentric cross sectional survey. Setting An anonymous online French survey was sent through mailing lists and social networks. It included between up to 33 questions about SRC knowledge, prevention and management and access to educational resources. Participants Athletes, healthcare professionals and coaches from Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland related to the ReFORM IOC Research Centre network. Outcome Measures Tested (score/10) level of concussion knowledge across occupations and origin; relationship between knowledge and behaviour in athletes. Main Results 2072 participants took part in the survey. The sample included 998 (48%) athletes, 677 (33%) coaches and 398 (19%) healthcare professionals. Participants originated from France (35%), Canada (32%), Belgium (12%), Switzerland (10%), Luxembourg (5%) and other countries (15%). The tested level of knowledge significantly differed between occupations (healthcare professionals: 9.42 ± 1.28; athletes; 7.84 ± 1.75; coaches: 8.53 ± 1.79; p<0.001). It was significantly higher in Canada as compared to European countries (p<0.001). Among the athletes, 91% answered ‘no’ to the knowledge question ‘can you continue to play sport in the presence of concussion symptoms’ although 39% later report having played in presence of symptoms. This raises questions about the impact of knowledge on behaviour change. Conclusions There is an inhomogeneous distribution of knowledge about SRC in the Francophone sport community. The impact of knowledge vs. behavioural changes should be considered in future training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".