117: Parental Knowledge of Trampoline Safety in Children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Trampoline injuries remain an important pediatric injury necessitating either an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization. Parents are in the best position to advocate for the safety of their children during recreational use of trampolines. However, there is no evidence examining parental awareness and application of trampoline-related safety recommendations. In parents of children who presented to the ED with extremity injuries, we determined the proportion of parents who were aware of the five key recommendations for safer recreational trampoline use in children. We also examined parental willingness to allow their children to use a recreational trampoline once informed that national pediatric and orthopedic societies have recommended a ban on home use of trampolines. This was a prospective cross-sectional survey of parents presenting to a tertiary care pediatric emergency department with children 2–17 years of age with an extremity injury. The 24 question survey tool was pre and pilot tested on the target audience for question content and clarity. Assuming a sample proportion of parents who are aware of all five key recommendations to be 0.10, error of +1.5%, α=0.05, a β=0.2 resulted in a sample size of 1400. Of the 1423 enrolled parents, 542 (38.1%) had regular access to a trampoline and 125 (8.8%) of their respective children had a history trampoline injury. Importantly, only 116 (8.2%; 95% CI 6.8 to 9.6) of parents were aware of five key safety recommendations for home trampoline use. Parental knowledge of trampoline safety recommendations was less likely in those whose children had regular recreational trampoline use versus those without (OR =0.6 95% CI 0.4, 1.0), while those parents with children who had a prior trampoline related injury versus those without such injury were more likely to be aware of trampoline safety (OR = 2.3 95% 1.1, 5.1). 96.5% of parents reported that their primary care physician had never discussed trampoline safety with them. Prior to informing parents of the ban recommended by pediatric and orthopedic societies, the proportion of parents willing to own a home trampoline was 30.5%, while after this disclosure willingness decreased to 20.5% (P<0.0001). Trampoline safety knowledge of the five key recommendations among parents is low, but increases with exposure to a trampoline related injury. Parents were less willing to own a home trampoline once made aware of national recommendations. In this population, trampoline safety knowledge was not being discussed preventively in well child visits.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».