119 Trampoline park safety perceptions of caregivers of patients presenting to the paediatric emergency department in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new form of trampoline recreation has recently emerged in the form of trampoline parks. Trampoline parks are dangerous, with similar rates of injury as home trampolines, and an increased likelihood of injuries warranting hospital admission. No current Canadian governmental regulations or industry regulations exist for trampoline parks. This study aimed to determine the public perspective of trampoline park safety in order to provide a basis for addressing the current lack of safety recommendations around trampoline parks. A convenience sample of parents/caregivers of children seeking care in the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) from December 11–27, 2018 were approached by research assistants to participate in a 23 question survey regarding trampoline safety. Questions included caregiver and child demographics, trampoline injury history, safety perceptions of both home trampolines and trampoline parks as measured on a 5 point Likert scale from “Very Unsafe” to “Very Safe” as well as awareness of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) statement regarding trampoline use. The survey was completed in the Research Electronic Data Capture System. Of 495 caregivers approached to participate 408 completed the survey (82.4%). The majority of caregivers were the child’s mother (68.6%) and between 31–50 years of age (72.6%). 64.5% of participants (263/408) were aware of the new trampoline parks recently opening in the community and 179/408 (43.8%) of caregivers had allowed their child to visit a trampoline park. 32.5% of participants (133/408) considered home trampolines “safe/very safe” while 123/408 (30.1%) of participants considered them unsafe/very unsafe. 33.8% of caregivers (138/408) considered trampoline parks “safe/very safe” while 110/408 (27.0%) believed them unsafe/very unsafe. 155/404 (38.4%) of caregivers believed there is a safe age that a child could play alone at a trampoline park with the mean (SD) acceptable age of 10.2 (3.2). 64/408 (15.7%) caregivers were aware of the CPS statement regarding trampoline safety and 67.2% of those, 43/64 (67%) thought the current CPS statement about backyard trampolines should apply to trampoline parks, and 364/407 (89.4%) of respondents thought the Ontario government should institute mandatory standards for trampoline parks. Our results suggest that caregivers consider trampoline parks to be safer than backyard trampolines, and perceive that young children can safely participate in trampoline park activities. Our work supports a call for adjustment of CPS guidelines and public policy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".