High school rugby coaches’ knowledge and opinions of concussion in KwaZulu Natal province in South Africa: an ecological cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concussions in Rugby Union are common with an increased risk to adolescent players. Coaches are key to injury prevention and a greater understanding of their knowledge and sentiments may guide future initiatives. There is a lack of data on rugby coaches, especially in South Africa. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge and opinions of high school rugby coaches regarding concussion management. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 37 high school rugby coaches in South Africa, was conducted via a self-reported questionnaire. Concussion knowledge was scored for correct answers only with closed-question scaling methods to measure the importance of items of concussion management using a graphical rating scale. An attitude scale (Likert) was used to assess self-reported opinions and behaviours. Associations were calculated for participant characteristics and overall concussion injury knowledge. RESULTS: More participants showed good overall knowledge of ≥ 75% (n = 22, 59% vs. n = 15, 40%), especially those with greater coaching experience (p = 0.021). Player welfare was perceived more important than player performance (185 vs. 164), with concussion prevention most important (184 of 185). Appealing characteristics of an injury prevention programme were the improvement of player skill (173, SD ± 0.75, mean 4.68), being adaptable (171, ± 0.86, 4.62), and being completed in the warm-up (167, ± 0.93, 4.51). The biggest perceived barriers were duration (138, ± 1.59, mean 3.73), effort (130, ± 1.56, 3.51), compliance and lack of knowledge (both 127, ± 1.68, 3.43). CONCLUSION: These results support the implementation of ongoing concussion education for rugby coaches and identify areas for promoting awareness and knowledge of concussion injury prevention, identification, and specific management of younger athletes. Appealing characteristics and barriers are highlighted and may allow for improved implementation and adherence to concussion prevention programmes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".