Sport participation and injury rates in high school students: A Canadian survey of 2029 adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to examine sport and recreational (S&R) activity participation and injury rates (IR) in high school students (ages 14-19). METHODS: High school students (N = 24 schools, n = 2,029; 958 male, 1,048 female, 23 identified 'other' or missing; ages 14-19) in Alberta completed a web-based survey during class (October 2018-March 2019). Students identified their top three sports for participation in the past year. Primary outcome measures included IR for (a) any S&R-related injury, (b) most serious S&R-related injury resulting in medical attention, and (c) most serious injury resulting in restriction from S&R for at least one day. RESULTS: In total, 1763/2029 (86.89%) respondents [861/958 (89.87%) male, 886/1048 (84.54%) female, 16/23 (69.57%) identifying as 'other' or missing] participated in an S&R activity in the past year. Top sports for male participation were basketball (33.08%; 95% CI 27.67-39.00), ice hockey (20.46%; 95% CI 14.87-27.47), and soccer (19.42%; 95% CI 15.67-23.80). Top sports for female participation were dance (22.52%; 95% CI 17.98-27.82), basketball (18.32%; 95% CI 14.32-23.14), and badminton (17.84%; 95% CI 13.35-23.43). Of the 1,971 students completing the S&R injury question, 889 reported at least one injury during the past year [(IR = 45.10 injuries/100 students/year (95% CI 39.72-50.61)]. The medical attention IR was 29.09 injuries/100 students/year (95% CI 24.49-34.17) and time loss IR was 36.00 injuries/100 students/year (95% CI 30.47-41.93). CONCLUSIONS: High school student S&R IRs are high with 29% of adolescents reporting at least one medical attention injury within the past year. Injury prevention strategies targeting youth are necessary. Practical Application: Participation in S&R activities has multiple physical, psychological, and health benefits for adolescents, but some S&R activities also have greater risks of injury. This study informs the next sports to target for implementation of optimal prospective surveillance and injury prevention strategies among high school aged students.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".