Research priorities for diagnosis, prognosis, and rehabilitation following concussion: results from a national survey of Australian health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the Concussion James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLAPSP) (Canada) identified serious research gaps regarding diagnosis, management, and access to effective rehabilitation for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Our aim was to determine if the same research priorities are important to Australian health professionals working in the concussion/mTBI field. A survey was distributed <i>via</i> professional networks, social media, professional group listservs, a research project noticeboard, and at conferences. It comprised of 25 of the highest ranked concussion research questions from the JLAPSP. We examined how professionals ranked the research questions and analyzed variation in ranking by clinical role and concussion/mTBI work experience. Our sample of 187 participants included medical and allied health professionals. Most participants were occupational therapists (22%), physiotherapists (18%), neuropsychologists (17%), and worked in Victoria (47%), New South Whales (18%), or Queensland (15%) in metropolitan areas. Health professionals ranked three research questions highest: identifying methods to predict prolonged recovery; effectiveness of early referral and treatment by a specialized concussion/mTBI team; and implementation studies on upskilling healthcare workers. The research priorities identified can guide research efforts to improve the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of individuals with concussion/mTBI in Australia. Health professionals with experience in the assessment and rehabilitation of adults with concussions overwhelmingly agree that there is a need for further research to understand the prognosis and the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation clinics.The role of healthcare providers in supporting recovery and the long-term health implications of suffering a concussion was identified as a priority.Both pre-clinical and clinical research are identified priorities to determine the effectiveness of biomarkers for concussion and return to activity.Health professionals also call for clinical trials testing management protocols, and implementation trials to support translation of clinical guidelines into practice to understand the role of healthcare providers in rehabilitation. Health professionals with experience in the assessment and rehabilitation of adults with concussions overwhelmingly agree that there is a need for further research to understand the prognosis and the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation clinics. The role of healthcare providers in supporting recovery and the long-term health implications of suffering a concussion was identified as a priority. Both pre-clinical and clinical research are identified priorities to determine the effectiveness of biomarkers for concussion and return to activity. Health professionals also call for clinical trials testing management protocols, and implementation trials to support translation of clinical guidelines into practice to understand the role of healthcare providers in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".