Association Between Follow-Up Visit Timing After A Concussion and Subsequent Care Seeking in Children and Youth: A Population-Based Study in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between follow-up visit timing and occurrence of the first subsequent health care seeking visit. SETTING: The province of British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 029 children and youth who were diagnosed with an initial concussion from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. These data were obtained from Population Data BC. DESIGN: A retrospective, descriptive correlational study. MAIN MEASURES: Follow-up timing was measured categorically as timely (4 weeks), delayed (1-3 months), or no follow-up; the occurrence of a subsequent health care visit beyond 3 months postinjury was measured up to 12 months at 3-month intervals (ie, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months). These variables were measured using diagnostic codes for concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and the 17 concussion symptoms. RESULTS: After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, having a delayed follow-up, relative to timely follow-up, was associated with higher odds of a subsequent health care seeking visit at 4 to 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 2.68; confidence interval [CI], 2.08-3.47), 7 to 9 months (OR = 1.71; CI, 1.21-2.40), and 10 to 12 months (OR = 1.67; CI, 1.13-2.48). In contrast to having a delayed follow-up, having no follow-up, relative to timely follow-up, was associated with not having a subsequent health care seeking visit at 4 to 6 months (OR = 0.57; CI, 0.48-0.67) and 7 to 9 months (OR = 0.79; CI, 0.66-0.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up visit timing after a concussion in children and youth is associated with subsequent health care seeking. Greater efforts are needed to investigate the importance of initial follow-up visit timing, as they may play an integral role in injury prevention and symptom management following injury.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".