MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W141013012 · doi:10.1093/pch/8.2.113

Swimming lessons for infants and toddlers

2003· article· en· W141013012 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Nguyen, Lynne Warda

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPediatricsMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury death in Canadian children one to four years of age, accounting for more than one-fifth of deaths in this age group [1],[2]. Hospitalization rates for near-drowning peak in the toddler age group, with a five-fold increased risk compared with older children [2]. Infant and toddler drownings tend to occur in or around the home, with infants mostly in bathtubs, and toddlers falling into swimming pools [3],[4]. Swimming programs for infants as young as several months of age are widely available in Canada. These programs are designed to introduce young children to water, build water confidence, and teach water safety to parents and guardians. Few studies have examined readiness for swimming lessons in this age group. Parker and Blanksby [5] reported that childrens earliest mastery of water confidence and basic aquatic locomotive skills is four years of age, despite the age at which lessons commence. Blanksby et al [6] reported that children achieved the skills necessary to perform the front crawl at 5.5 years of age, regardless of whether lessons began at two, three or four years of age. There is evidence that swimming lessons improve swimming ability and deck behaviour in young children (two to four years of age); however, the long term maintenance of these skills has not been reported [7],[8]. There is no evidence that swimming lessons prevent drowning or near drowning in this age group. Although it may be possible to teach young infants basic motor skills for water, infants cannot be expected to learn the elements of water safety or to react appropriately in emergencies. No young child, particularly those who are preschool aged, can ever be considered water safe. Active adult supervision and four-sided pool fencing are the best strategies against drowning in this age group [9],[10],[11]. In particular, pool alarms are not effective and may give parents a false sense of security. Hazards of swimming lessons for young children other than drowning include water intoxication with hyponatremia and seizures, hypothermia, and various infectious diseases including otitis externa [12]–[19]. Based on the current research evidence on the effectiveness of infant and toddler aquatic programs, the Canadian Paediatric Society recommends that: Swimming programs for infants and toddlers less than four years of age should not be promoted as being an effective drowning prevention strategy. Children less than four years of age do not have the developmental ability to master water survival skills and swim independently. Aquatic activities and swimming programs for these children should focus on building confidence and educating parents regarding water safety. Swimming instruction should be carried out by trained instructors in pools that comply with current standards for design, maintenance, operation, and infection control (to reduce the risk of hepatitis A, gastroenteritis, skin infections, etc.). Residential pools should be fenced on all four sides, and must include a self-closing, self-latching gate. Check with the local municipality for other requirements, such as height and type of fencing. Constant arms-length adult supervision is recommended for toddlers and infants near water (pools, bathtubs and natural bodies of water). Infants placed in water must be held by an adult at all times. Government-approved personal flotation devices (PFDs) should be used for all young children and those who cannot swim. PFDs are not a substitute for supervision. Parents and pool owners should be encouraged to receive first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, and to maintain an emergency action plan. Members: Claire LeBlanc MD; John LeBlanc MD; Bich Hong Nguyen MD; Richard Stanwick MD; Lynne Warda MD (chair); David Wong MD (director responsible) Consultant: Milton Tenenbein MD Liaisons: Yves Fortin, Product Safety Branch, Health Canada; Sonya Corkum, Safe Kids Canada Principal Authors: Bich Hong Nguyen MD; Lynne Warda MD Disclaimer: The recommendations in this position statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. Internet addresses are current at time of publication.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,461
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,471

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetElectrolyte and hormonal disordersTravaux en français237 207