Prevalence of adolescent physical activity-related injuries in sports, leisure time, and school: the National Physical Activity Behaviour Study for children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of adolescent physical activity-related injuries in sports club activities, leisure time physical activity and school-based physical activity. The secondary aim was to investigate the differences in the prevalence of physical activity -related injuries between years 2014 and 2016. In addition, we set out to study the associations between age, sex and the frequency of physical activity and injury prevalence. METHODS: This cross-sectional study is based on the National Physical Activity Behaviour Study for Children and Adolescents (LIITU in Finnish) conducted in years 2014 and 2016. The subjects completed an online questionnaire in the classroom during school hours. A total of 8406 subjects participated in the current study. Out of these, 49% were boys and 51% were girls. The proportions of 11-, 13-, and 15-year-olds were 35%, 34% and 31%, respectively. RESULTS: In the combined data for 2014 and 2016, injury prevalence was higher in sports club activities (46%, 95% CI 44.8-47.8) than in leisure time PA (30%, 95% CI, 28.5-30.5) or school-based PA (18%, 95% CI, 17.4-19.1). In leisure time PA, the injury prevalence was higher than in school-based PA. In all the three settings, injury prevalence was higher in 2016 than in 2014. Frequency of PA was associated with a higher risk for PA-related injuries in sports clubs and leisure time. CONCLUSIONS: With half of the subjects reporting at least one PA-related injury during the past year, results indicate that adolescent PA-related injuries are a large-scale problem. There is a worrisome rise in injury prevalence in recent years. From a public health standpoint, there is an urgent need to invest in injury prevention to reverse this trend.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".