4.6 Article

Understanding perceptions of injury risk associated with playing junior cricket

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 115-120

出版社

SPORTS MEDICINE AUSTRALIA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2010.06.001

关键词

Safety; Attitudes; Juniors; Cricket; Community

资金

  1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  2. NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preventing sports injuries in children is important, but there is limited information about children's perceptions of injury risk or their injury beliefs and attitudes. This study investigated injury risk perceptions in a sample of junior sports participants across different age levels of play. Junior cricket players (n = 284, aged 8-16) completed a survey about their injury risk perceptions. Survey questions asked about players' perceived injury risk to themselves compared to cricketers in general, as well as their perceived injury risk across different playing position, ground condition, and protective equipment use scenarios. Chi-square analysis found that risk perceptions were significantly higher in U12 and U14 players for both batting and fielding compared to U16 players and that U16 players had a higher risk perception associated with bowling. Players tended to see themselves as less likely to be injured than cricketers in general and perceived there 10 be a high risk of injury when fielding close to the batter and a comparatively low risk of injury when fielding in the outfield. Junior players also perceived there to be a high injury risk associated with playing on hard and bumpy grounds. Despite their relatively accurate perceptions of risk and appreciation for the importance of protective equipment, junior players need continual reminding of the importance of safety strategies by coaches and others. Coaches need to inform players that fielding injuries can occur anywhere on the ground, and include skills practice accordingly. (C) 2010 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据