“I never had a thought about drowning”. Exploring water safety attitudes and practices among older adults in Western Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore factors associated with drowning among older adults aged 65 years and over in Western Australia. METHODS: This paper was concerned with illuminating older adults experience and perspectives of water safety and drowning prevention. The study used in-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 15) to examine knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. The interviews were analysed using a phenomenological hermeneutical interpretation whereby three steps were taken to identify common patterns of meaning from individual's lifeworld. DISCUSSION: Interviews captured the voices of those who identified as swimmers and those who identified as nonswimmers and revealed nine constitutive patterns which support a central theme of life around water. This study provides insights into perceptions and experiences of water safety as individuals' age. The findings suggest individuals who perceived themselves as strong swimmers had a decreased perception of risk, while participants who self-identified as weak swimmers were more likely to avoid risks and modified their behaviour accordingly. Findings highlighted low water safety literacy and suggest that older people not only underestimate their drowning risk, but also lack an understanding of the risk factors for drowning. SO WHAT?: The findings from this study will have a direct impact on the development of a WA health promotion program to prevent drowning among older adults.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".