Safe2Play in youth ice hockey: injury profile and risk factors in a 5-year Canadian longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ice hockey is a popular global sport with growing participation for boys and girls yet remains a high-risk sport for injury. While the evidence for some risk factors, such as bodychecking policy is well established, other risk factors such as player sex have been understudied. The objectives of this study were to examine factors associated with rates of game-related injury, game-related injury resulting in >7 days of time-loss, and practice-related injury in youth ice hockey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Safe2Play was a five-year prospective cohort study (2013-2018). All injuries were identified using validated injury surveillance methodology. Multilevel Poisson regression (adjusting for cluster by team and including multiple imputation of missing covariates) was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for player sex, age group, bodychecking policy, year of play, level of play, weight, previous injury within last 12 months, previous lifetime concussion history, and position. RESULTS: A total of 4418 male and female ice hockey players (representing 6584 player-seasons) participating in under-13 (ages 11-12), under-15 (ages 13-14) and under-18 (ages 15-17) age groups were recruited. There were 1184 game-related and 182 practice-related injuries. Factors associated with game-related injury included female sex (IRR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.18-2.08), previous injury (IRR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.26-1.70) and lifetime concussion history (IRR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.23-1.62). Goaltenders had a lower rate of injury (IRR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40-0.72) relative to forwards, as did players exposed to policy disallowing bodychecking in games (IRR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.55). Female sex (IRR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.10-3.28) and lifetime concussion history were also significantly associated with practice-related injury (IRR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.08-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from a large 5-year Canadian youth ice hockey longitudinal cohort, several factors associated with injury were identified. Future injury prevention strategies should consider age, sex, previous concussion and injury history, and body checking leagues. Future research in female youth ice hockey including female-only leagues should be a priority to inform prevention strategies in this understudied population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".