The effect of a ski-snowboard injury prevention video on safety knowledge and behaviours in school programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To implement and evaluate the effects of a skiing and snowboarding injury prevention video on child and adolescent safety knowledge and behaviours. Study Design: Cluster-randomized controlled trial. Background: Skiing and snowboarding are two popular winter activities; however, these sports can lead to injury. Previous studies have found that injuries in snow sports can be prevented and may be associated with poor decisions, actions and human error. Currently, there is no comprehensive injury prevention program found in skiing and snowboarding. Methods: The participants were students in grades 2 through 9 who were a part of the ski and snowboard school programs at a ski area in Southern Alberta. The participants were randomized into either the control or intervention group, based on the school they attended. The control group followed the current standard protocol for the ski and snowboard school programs, including an orientation video, while the intervention group received a video that focuses on safety knowledge and injury prevention. The outcomes were measured through the use of pre- and post-tests (safety knowledge uptake) and the observations of risky behaviours on the ski hill. Results: There was a significant increase in safety knowledge scores for those in the intervention group immediately following exposure to the video intervention (mean change: +1.91 points/15 points) compared with the control group after exposure to the control video (mean change: +0.10 points/15 points). There were 23.31 risky behaviours/100 runs (95% CI: 16.75-29.87) for those in the control group, and 22.95 risky behaviours/100 runs (95% CI: 17.63-28.26) for those in the intervention group. Conclusion: This project demonstrates that a skiing and snowboarding injury prevention video can improve knowledge scores within a school-aged population. The video intervention, however, was not associated with the overall incidence of risky behaviours in this population. Future injury prevention research should investigate how to better translate knowledge to induce behavioural changes and limit risky behaviours in child and adolescent skiers and snowboarders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".