MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405371365 · doi:10.1542/hpeds.2024-008081

Pediatric Bathtub Drownings in Ontario from 2003 to 2022: A Case Series

2024· article· en· W4405371365 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Oliver Venettacci, Bernard Pawlowicz, Gino R. Somers, Andrew S. Williams, Christina Maratta

Notice bibliographique

RevueHospital Pediatrics · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBathtubMedicinePoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSuicide preventionMedical emergencySeries (stratigraphy)Emergency medicinePediatricsPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Canada, bathtub-related drowning events account for 10% of all drownings requiring hospitalization, with fatality rates of approximately 1.3 per 1 000 000 persons per year.1 Lack of adequate supervision, co-bathing, bath seats, and medical conditions have been identified as risk factors.2 This study aimed to determine the incidence of fatal unintentional pediatric bathtub drownings in Ontario from 2003 to 2022 and describe demographic and circumstantial factors.This study is a case series of all unintentional fatal pediatric bathtub drownings in Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2022. Any child (0–18 years) whose cause of death was determined to be the result of drowning in a bathtub was included. Cases were reviewed by forensic pathologists using coroners’ records for all deaths in children attributed to drowning in a bathtub or when the deceased was discovered unresponsive or dead in a bathtub. Coroners’, police, and autopsy reports were used to extract data. Annual crude rates of pediatric bathtub drownings per 1 000 000 children were used to determine incidence rates. The Ontario Marginalization Index was used to determine area-level marginalization quintiles.3 Descriptive statistics were performed. The study was approved by the University of Toronto Human Research Ethics Unit.We identified 47 unintentional childhood/adolescent bathtub drownings during the 20-year period. Fifty-five percent of unintentional pediatric drownings occurred in children aged younger than 24 months and 17% in adolescents aged older than 14 years. Lapse of supervision was reported in all 47 cases. More than a quarter (28%) of the fatalities were among children residing in neighborhoods in the greatest material deprivation quintile (Table 1). The annual incidence rate for unintentional pediatric bathtub drownings ranged from 0 to 2.71 per 1 000 000 children (age 0–14 years) from 2003 to 2022 with a mean incidence rate of 1/1 000 000 (Figure 1). During this study period, 76% of drownings occurred in children aged no more than 5 years. Among children aged 2–5 years, 8 (80%) had a seizure disorder. Two-thirds (18/27) reported a lapse in supervision of no more than 5 minutes, and a lapse of no more than 30 seconds was reported in 4 fatalities. Half of the children in this study were co-bathing with a sibling. Eight adolescents died by unintentional bathtub drowning, of whom 63% had a known seizure disorder. Two had a positive toxicology screen for street drugs, and 2 were noncompliant with their anticonvulsant medications.This is the first study describing all unintentional pediatric bathtub drownings in Canada’s most populous province. This study has four main findings. First, the incidence has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years. Second, lapses in supervision remain a significant risk factor. Third, co-bathing continues to provide false reassurance. Fourth, seizure disorders are common among older children that drown in bathtubs.Although admittedly rare, pediatric bathtub drownings have failed to demonstrate the same decline in incidence when compared with other high-profile public health campaigns in Canada.4–9 The relatively static bathtub drowning rates of the past 20 years raise the question of renewed and revised public health messaging10 to mitigate these rare but preventable fatalities.In 2006, the 20-year single-center review of accidental pediatric bathtub drownings by Somers et al identified lack of adequate supervision, co-bathing, and bath seats as risk factors.2 These same factors persist 20 years later. Lapse in supervision, frequent in many childhood injuries, remains the most important factor to stress in bath safety education.Seizure disorder is a well-described risk factor for fatalities within bodies of water.11,12 In this study, 38% of cases had a known seizure disorder, including 63% of adolescents. Despite widespread education on the importance of water safety among those with a history of seizures,13,14 these data further highlight the importance of safety counselling for children with seizure disorders.The limitations of this study include that police reports, subject to recall bias, often relied on bystander recollection of traumatic events. Also, the lack of standardized reporting may have introduced observation bias.In conclusion, incidence rates in Ontario have remained relatively stable in Ontario from 2003 to 2022. This study highlights that no duration of supervision lapse is safe and co-bathing with an older sibling is not protective. Findings suggest that public health messaging regarding bath safety requires a renewed approach, perhaps using readily accessible online platforms and social media.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · 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.

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

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHospital PediatricsMême sujetInjury Epidemiology and PreventionTravaux en français237 207