Does teaching children to swim increase exposure to water or risk-taking when in the water? Emerging evidence from Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SwimSafe, a basic swimming and safe rescue curriculum, has been taught to large numbers of children in Bangladesh. Teaching swimming potentially increases risk if it increases water exposure or high-risk practices in water. This study compares water exposure and risk practices for SwimSafe graduates (SS) with children who learned swimming naturally. METHODS: Interviewers obtained detailed water exposure histories for the preceding 48 h from 3936 SS aged 6-14 and 3952 age-matched and sex-matched children who had learned swimming naturally. Frequencies of water exposure and water entries for swimming or playing were compared. RESULTS: There were 9741 entries into water among the 7046 participants in the 48 h prior to interview. About one-third (31.2%) had no water entries, one-tenth (10.5%) entered once, half (49.2%) entered twice and a tenth (9.1%) entered three or more times. Proportions of children in each group were similar. About 99.5% of both groups only entered the water for bathing. For those entering to swim or play, the mean number of entries was similar (SS 1.63, natural swimmer (NS) 1.36, p=0.40). Swimming or playing alone in the water was rare (1 SS, 0 NS). CONCLUSIONS: Most water exposure for children is for bathing. Less than 1% swam or played in the water during the 48 h recall period (0.6% SS, 0.4% NS). Learning swimming in SwimSafe did not increase water exposure nor did it increase water entry for playing or swimming compared with children who learned to swim naturally.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".