Optometric Management of Concussion in Canadian Private Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the current prescribing and assessment practices of optometrists in Canada seeing patients with persistent concussion-associated vision deficits. Methods A 6-question electronic survey was distributed to provincial and national boards of optometry in Canada. Questions pertaining to vision assessment, prescribing habits, daily living advice, appointment duration and follow-up appointment(s) were included. Practicing optometrists in Canada who have or have not managed concussion patients were eligible to complete the survey. Analysis consisted of categorizing and analyzing the frequency of responses provided. Results A total of 199 responses were received of which there were 142 completed responses (including 1 blank response). Of these, 13 optometrists indicated that they did not manage concussion. Of the 128 optometrists who indicated that they managed concussion 98% did a full eye exam. Visual acuity was assessed 96% of the time. Other frequent assessments were dry refraction 91%, pupil dilation 80%, and full binocular vision assessments 78%. Most respondents, 116, indicated that they provided advice on daily living activity and the most frequent advice was to limit activity, 64% (74/116). Responses were offered by 121 optometrists on appointment duration. Most frequently optometrists stated concussion appointments lasted between 30-60 minutes (69/121). Responses on follow-up were given by 119 optometrists and the most frequent follow-up was 1-2 months (27/119). Conclusion The results from this study provide insight on how optometrists in private practice are managing vision deficits following concussion. Further research on treatment effectiveness is required to develop an optometric protocol for the management of vision in patients with persistent concussion symptoms.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".