Abstract
Rivers are a leading location for drowning, yet little is known about people’s usage of these waterways. This pilot study aimed to test the use of direct observations to calculate river usage. Direct observations were conducted at regular intervals within defined zones at four river drowning locations in Australia (including weekends and the Australia Day national public holiday). Data recorded were date and time of observation; total people (including males, females, children, and adults); and number of people on, in, and beside the water. Univariate analysis with mean (SD) and range was conducted. Interrater reliability for observations was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (one-way random-effects, average measures model), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Across 149 time points, 309 observations resulted in 13,326 river interactions observed by multiple observers. There was an average of 39 people (M = 39.4, SD = 29.4, range = 0–137) per observation, 44 people (M = 44.2, SD = 32.7, range = 0–37) on an average weekend, and 97 people (M = 96.8, SD = 58.1, range = 20–190) on Australia Day. More females (M = 20.6, SD = 16.0, range = 0–83) than males (M = 18.3, SD = 14.5, range = 0–68) were observed. More people were observed in the water (M = 20.6, SD = 20.4, range = 0–84) than beside or on the water. Interrater reliability was excellent, consistently above 0.900 for all variables collected (apart from the variable of beside the river). Despite males accounting for 80% of river drowning fatalities, more females were observed than males. Increased visitation on the Australia Day public holiday may be linked to increased drowning risk. This study detailed a simple approach to data collection, exploring exposure within a defined zone at river locations. River usage is dynamic, with people’s movement in and out of the water changing their risk exposure. Observational-based data collection for drowning, particularly for rivers, is an important yet highly neglected area of research.
Highlights
Calculating exposure is one of the significant challenges associated with understanding drowning risk [1,2,3]
Of the 290 observations that did not occur on Australia Day, there was an average of 39 people (M = 39.4, SD = 29.4, range = 0–137) per observation
The findings of this study provide justification for observation-based data collection for drowning, in particular at rivers, which have been a neglected yet highly prevalent location for drowning
Summary
Calculating exposure is one of the significant challenges associated with understanding drowning risk [1,2,3]. Many epidemiological studies of drowning utilise crude or age-standardised drowning rates per 100,000 population. Drowning rates per head of population do not consider visitation, proximity to water (i.e., in, on, or beside the water), frequency and type of use, nor duration of visitation at aquatic locations, and impact on drowning risk. There are a variety of methods for calculating exposure. While surveys are a convenient tool, they have inherent limitations including their retrospective, self-reported nature and the impact of recall. Observational studies are a popular alternative, they are not without their own limitations, such as observer bias, confounding and selection bias, and cost [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
