5.12 ‘You’ve got a friend in me’: what do high school students want from a peer support program following concussion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore high school student needs informing a peer support program following concussion. Design Qualitative case-study design. Setting High school. Participants 53 high school students (16 male, 36 female, 1 prefers-not-to-disclose; median 16 (range 15–18)) enrolled in a sports medicine course at a Calgary, Alberta, Canada high school who had sustained a concussion (n=20) or were interested in supporting peers following concussion (n=33). Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) Semi-structured group interviews (N=7 groups) were conducted in-person at the high school. Interviews aimed to understand what factors should be considered in the development of a peer support program for students following a concussion at their school. Outcome Measures Interviews were analysed using conventional content analysis. Main Results Participants preferred a one-on-one buddy-program for their school, rather than a formal peer support group. The buddy-program could facilitate concussion education, advocacy for school supports, social support, and academic or tutoring support in a more confidential manner. Teachers would be tasked with facilitating pairings between trusting peers. Buddies would meet on an as needed basis, as decided by the pairing. Barriers to program uptake identified included stigma, lack of interest, decreased awareness, and failure to report a concussion. Participants highlighted a need for schoolwide concussion education and consistency in return-to-school processes. Conclusions One-on-one peer support is perceived by high school students to be more beneficial for students upon return-to-school following a concussion as it would provide confidentiality and trust. A multifaceted peer support buddy-program should be developed and piloted in high schools.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".