What do under 15 year old schoolboy rugby union players think about protective headgear?
(17/297)
OBJECTIVES: When protective headgear is designed, the attitudes of the intended users needs to be taken into account, as well as safety performance criteria. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the attitudes of schoolboy rugby union players towards protective headgear. METHODS: A survey of 140 rugby union players (82.4% response rate) from 10 randomly selected school teams in metropolitan Sydney was conducted at the end of the 1999 playing season. All players were aged 14-16 years. All teams had participated in a trial of headgear during the 1999 season in which six of the teams had been assigned to a headgear trial arm and four teams to a control arm. Players completed a self report questionnaire during a supervised session at school. The questionnaire collected information on recent head injuries, use of protective equipment, and attitudes towards headgear. RESULTS: Some form of protective equipment was always worn by 76.1% of players: 93.6% reported using a mouthguard and 79.3% a helmet/headgear during the 1999 season. The two most important reasons for wearing headgear were related to safety concerns. Players with no recent head/neck injury were more likely to report that they felt safer when wearing headgear (p<0.001) and less likely to cite a previous injury as a motivating factor for wearing headgear (p<0.001) than those who had sustained a recent head/neck injury. Of the players who wore headgear during the 1999 season, 67% said that they played more confidently when they wore headgear, but 63% said that their head was hotter. Few players reported that their head was uncomfortable (15%) or that it was hard to communicate (3%) when they wore headgear. The main reasons for not wearing headgear were related to its design features: uncomfortable (61%) and it was hot (57%). CONCLUSIONS: The primary reason cited by players for wearing headgear is safety. Receiving an injury would also motivate non-wearers to wear headgear. Players report that they are more confident and able to tackle harder if they wear headgear, suggesting that a belief in its protective capabilities may influence behaviour. These attitudes need to be addressed in the design of effective headgear as well as in strategies to promote its use. (+info)
Use of protective equipment by in-line skaters: an observational study.
(18/297)
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of protective equipment use (that is, helmets, wrist guards, elbow pads, knee pads) in a representative sample of in-line skaters. SETTING: Fifteen municipalities throughout the province of British Columbia. METHOD: A province-wide observational survey was conducted in the summer of 1999. Skaters were observed at four types of sites (commuter, recreational, neighbourhood, general community) in 15 municipalities to provide a representative sample of in-line skaters. RESULTS: The observed use of protective equipment by the 877 in-line skaters was relatively low: wrist guards 25%, helmets 13%, elbow pads 14%, and knee pads 10%. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of relatively inexpensive protective equipment, few in-line skaters take advantage of the opportunity to protect themselves from injury. Policies and programs that serve to increase the use of protective equipment by in-line skaters are needed to help reduce the frequency of skating related injuries. (+info)
Effectiveness of headgear in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union football.
(19/297)
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether protective headgear reduced the incidence of concussion in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union. METHODS: Sixteen under 15 rugby union teams were recruited from three interschool competitions in metropolitan Sydney and the adjacent country region. A prospective study was undertaken over a single competitive season. The study had two arms: a headgear arm and a control arm. Headgear wearing rates and injury data were reported to the investigators and verified using spot checks. RESULTS: A total of 294 players participated in the study. There were 1179 player exposures with headgear and 357 without headgear. In the study time frame, there were nine incidences of concussion; seven of the players involved wore headgear and two did not. There was no significant difference between concussion rates between the two study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is some controversy about the desirability of wearing protective headgear in football, this pilot study strongly suggests that current headgear does not provide significant protection against concussion in rugby union at a junior level. (+info)
Bicycle-related injuries.
(20/297)
Bicycle riding is a popular form of recreation among persons of all ages, and related injuries cause significant morbidity and mortality. Most injuries occur in males and are associated with riding at high speed; most serious injuries and fatalities result from collisions with motor vehicles. Although superficial soft tissue injuries and musculoskeletal trauma are the most common injuries, head injuries are responsible for most fatalities and long-term disabilities. Overuse injuries may contribute to a variety of musculoskeletal complaints, compression neuropathies, perineal and genital complaints. Physicians treating such patients should consider medical factors, as well as suggest adjusting various components of the bicycle, such as the seat height and handlebars. Encouraging bicycle riders to wear helmets is key to preventing injuries; protective clothing and equipment, and general safety advice also may offer some protection. (+info)
Bicycle helmet use among schoolchldren--the influence of parental involvement and children's attitudes.
(21/297)
OBJECTIVE: To study attitudes towards and use of bicycle helmets among schoolchildren; to determine whether these attitudes are associated with the involvement of parents and school in bike safety. SETTINGS: Nine intermediate level schools and five upper level schools in two Swedish municipalities. METHOD: A survey with 1,485 participants aimed at pupils aged 12-15 years conducted during late spring 1997. Associations between parent and school involvement and children's attitudes and helmet use were studied using LisRel analyses. RESULT: At some point during their school years, a majority of the children stopped wearing bicycle helmets. Of 12-13 year olds, 80% said that they had used helmets when they were younger but at the time of the study, only 3% aged 14-15 years used helmets. Use decreased significantly during school years (p<0.001). The majority stated they quit using helmets because they were ugly, silly, uncomfortable, or inconvenient. There was a strong association between parental involvement, children's attitudes, and helmet use. However, parent involvement decreased as the children grew older. CONCLUSION: To increase the voluntary use of bicycle helmets among schoolchildren their attitudes must be influenced. An intervention aimed at both parents and children may be required. (+info)
Mandatory helmet legislation and children's exposure to cycling.
(22/297)
BACKGROUND: Mandatory helmet legislation for cyclists is the subject of much debate. Opponents of helmet legislation suggest that making riders wear helmets will reduce ridership, thus having a negative overall impact on health. Mandatory bicycle helmet legislation for children was introduced in Ontario, Canada in October 1995. The objective of our study was to examine trends in children's cycling rates before and after helmet legislation in one health district. SETTING: Child cyclists were observed at 111 preselected sites (schools, parks, residential streets, and major intersections) in the late spring and summer of 1993-97 and in 1999, in a defined urban community. PARTICIPANTS: Trained observers counted the number of child cyclists. The number of children observed in each area was divided by the number of observation hours, resulting in the calculation of cyclists per hour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A general linear model, using Tukey's method, compared the mean number of cyclists per hour for each year, and for each type of site. RESULTS: Although the number of child cyclists per hour was significantly different in different years, these differences could not be attributed to legislation. In 1996, the year after legislation came into effect, average cycling levels were higher (6.84 cyclists per hour) than in 1995, the year before legislation (4.33 cyclists per hour). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the findings in Australia, the introduction of helmet legislation did not have a significant negative impact on child cycling in this community. (+info)
Effectiveness of a state law mandating use of bicycle helmets among children: an observational evaluation.
(23/297)
In spring 1999, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of a 1997 Florida law requiring helmet use by all bicyclists younger than age 16 years. Sixty-four counties in Florida had enacted the bicycle helmet-use law, while the other three counties had opted out. Using a cross-sectional study design, the authors conducted unobtrusive observations at bicycle racks at public elementary schools statewide. Florida children riding bicycles in counties where the state helmet-use law was in place were twice as likely to wear helmets as children in counties without the law. In counties where the state law was in place, 16,907 (79%) of 21,313 riders observed wore a helmet, compared with only 148 (33%) of 450 riders in counties where no such law was in place (crude prevalence ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 2.1, 2.8). Helmet use by children of all racial groups exceeded 60% under the law. No significant difference in use by gender was found. These data support the positive influence of a law on bicycle helmet use among children. The data reinforce the Healthy People 2010 objective that all 50 states adopt such a law for children in order to increase helmet use and consequently reduce brain injury. (+info)
Promoting oral health: interventions for preventing dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. A report on recommendations of the task force on community preventive services.
(24/297)
The Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) has conducted systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness of selected population-based interventions to prevent and control dental caries (tooth decay), oral (mouth) and pharyngeal (throat) cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. The Task Force strongly recommends community water fluoridation and school-based or school-linked pit and fissure sealant delivery programs for prevention and control of dental caries. Using the rules of evidence it has established, the Task Force found insufficient evidence of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the remaining interventions reviewed. Therefore, the Task Force makes no recommendation for or against use of statewide or communitywide sealant promotion programs, population-based interventions for early detection of precancers and cancers, or population-based interventions to encourage use of helmets, facemasks, and mouthguards to reduce oral-facial trauma in contact sports. The Task Force's finding of insufficient evidence indicates the need for more research on intervention effectiveness. Until the results of such research become available, readers are encouraged to judge the usefulness of these interventions by other criteria. This report presents additional information regarding the recommendations, briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, and provides information designed to help apply the strongly recommended interventions locally. (+info)