Injury Prevention in Child and Adolescent Sport: Whose Responsibility Is It?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sport and recreational injuries are a leading cause of morbidity in youth. There is a significant body of literature on risk factors for sport-related injuries and a growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of sport-specific prevention strategies in youth. Given the predictability and preventability of injuries in youth sport, the purpose of this article is to develop a model that considers societal responsibility for injury prevention in youth sport, and to discuss the evidence that supports this model. DATA SOURCES/SYNTHESIS: Previously published papers have provided a basis for expert opinion to discuss an approach to examining the shared societal responsibility for implementing countermeasures to reduce the risk of injury to youth during sports. RESULTS: Based on a historical perspective, broad conceptual framework, and specific evidence for prevention strategies in youth sport, the authors have developed and supported a theoretical model that defines a responsibility hierarchy in preventing injuries in youth sport. An argument has been made for a hierarchy of responsibility, with the lowest level of responsibility assigned to the child, and the highest level to those organizations or groups with the potential to effect the most change. The justification for this approach has been discussed in the context of the desirability of passive prevention strategies, the limited evidence for the effectiveness of strategies relying solely on behavior change in children and parents, and the level of perceptual and cognitive development in children that inadequately prepares them to take primary responsibility for their own safety in sport. CONCLUSIONS: The development of effective programs to reduce the burden of sport injury among youth necessitates a scientific approach, the identification of key risk factors for injury, a thorough examination of how factors interact to affect risk, and the identification of potential barriers to the effectiveness of injury-prevention programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".