Adolescents’ Perspectives on Skateboarding and Injury Risk: The Benefits Outweigh the Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Skateboarding is an increasingly popular sport among youth, despite the fact that children and adolescents are the age groups most frequently injured when skateboarding. A greater understanding of the psycho-social factors that motivate participation in skateboarding, including why youth return to the sport after serious injury from skateboarding, is needed to inform injury prevention efforts. This study addressed that gap in knowledge. METHODS: Twenty-six Canadian adolescent skateboarders 14-17 years of age (20 males and 6 females) who had previously sustained medically attended injuries while skateboarding participated in individual interviews to explore their perspectives on skateboarding and injury risk, including reasons for returning to the sport after injury. RESULTS: Thematic analyses revealed that participants perceived many unique benefits from skateboarding, including interpersonal benefits, mental and physical health benefits, pleasure, personal growth, and identity development. Participants uniformly identified that a major drawback was the risk of injury, with trickle-down effects of injury including a loss of social contacts (e.g., missing friends), challenges to individual identity from not participating, and injury-specific negative outcomes (e.g., pain, physical limitations). When exploring reasons participants returned to the sport and to the trick or activity that precipitated their injury, the primary theme identified was that the benefits of skateboarding significantly outweighed the costs associated with potential re-injury. CONCLUSION: Results paint a nuanced picture of psycho-social factors that impact youths' skateboarding and decisions to return to the sport after injury. Implications for injury prevention are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".