Objective Poor concussion knowledge in the community has been linked to reduced injury identification. This study investigated if concussion knowledge could be improved by providing standard postinjury advice (written brochure).
Methods This study was a prospective, controlled study, with random allocation of 199 Australian adults to receive either a concussion information (CI, n=101), or non-CI (n=98). All participants completed the Rosenbaum Concussion Knowledge and Attitudes Survey on three occasions: pre-education and posteducation, and 1 week later.
Results A 2 (condition) × 3 (occasion) mixed analysis of variance with concussion knowledge as the dependent variable did not find a statistically significant interaction (p>0.05). This result was unchanged: (1) with the covariate addition of background education and; (2) in a subgroup analysis (individuals with initially ‘low’ self-rated knowledge). Some key misconceptions about concussion were identified.
Conclusion The community knowledge of concussion was not significantly improved by the concussion advice. Since injury recognition relies ton an extent on community knowledge, the identified misconceptions should be addressed. This could occur via public health messaging. In clinical settings and for future research, the next steps should also include regular updating of concussion information to keep pace with advances in the field.
- Recreation / Sports
- Traumatic Brain Injury
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.