Home versus indoor trampoline park injuries: A four-year review of hospital admissions, associated costs, and impact on patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital admissions for trampoline-related injuries are a metric of injury severity. The literature shows hospital admissions are more likely to occur from trampoline park injuries rather than home trampoline injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the demographics, injury characteristics, patient experiences, and economic impact of home versus trampoline park injuries requiring admission to hospital before and after two indoor trampoline parks opened in the catchment area of a Level II trauma centre. A case series research design was used. All patients who were admitted to hospital following a trampoline injury were contacted. For those who consented, clinical data was recorded from patients' charts and electronic health records. A subset of participants consented to a telephone interview wherein patient narratives were collected on the mechanism of injury, recovery process, and impact of the injury. During the study period, 15 patients required 17 hospital admissions. Twelve consented to participate in the study. Nine of the 12 required an operative intervention. Eight of the 12 were trampoline park injuries. Anatomical location of the injuries, injury type and severity scores, hospital stay, and median age were similar. The economic impact of home trampoline and trampoline park injuries varied. Overall, there were more hospital admissions and more operative interventions for trampoline park injuries during the four-year study period. Seven participants who consented to be interviewed provided additional insights into the injury experience and long-term outcomes. This study contributes to the literature on trampoline-related injuries, focusing on hospital admissions, economic impact, and adds the important perspective of patients in evaluating the effect of these injuries.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".