4.0 Article

Sailing Injury and Illness: Results of an Online Survey

期刊

WILDERNESS & ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 291-297

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wem.2010.06.006

关键词

sailing; injury; illness; injury prevention

资金

  1. Bonnell Cove Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective.-The purpose of this study was to describe the relative frequency, patterns, and mechanisms of sailing-related injuries in dinghies and keelboats. Data were also collected on risky and risk-averse behaviors of sailors, as well as on sailing-related illnesses. Methods.-A web-based, logic-driven, multiple-choice survey was developed and links were posted on sailing-related websites. Data were collected from March through November 2006 on any injuries or illnesses sailors sustained over the prior 12 months. Results.-From 1188 respondents, a total of 1715 injuries and 559 illnesses was reported. The top 3 injuries for keel boats were leg contusions (11%), hand lacerations (8%), and arm contusions (6%), and in dinghies they were leg contusions (13%), knee contusions (6%), and leg lacerations (6%). The most common mechanisms of injury were trip/fall, hit by object, and caught in lines. Tacking, heavy weather, and jibing were the most common factors contributing to injury. The rates of injury and severe injury in this internet-based survey were 4.6 and 0.57 per 1000 days of sailing, respectively. Of the 70 severe injuries, 25% were fractures, 16% were torn tendons or cartilage, 14% were concussions, and 8% were dislocations. The median rate of lifejacket use was 30%, and median rate of sunscreen use was 80%. Sixteen percent of sailors reported sunburn over the prior 12 months. Seven percent of sailors reported use of alcohol within the 2 hours preceding injury. Conclusions.-The most common injuries in both keel boats and dinghies are soft-tissue injuries to the extremities. Severe injuries and illnesses in sailing are uncommon in this study population.

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

4.0
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