ArticleIrish journal of medical science2019
A preliminary audit of medical and aid provision in English Rugby union clubs: compliance with Regulation 9.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGoverning bodies are largely responsible for the monitoring and management of risks associated with a safe playing environment, yet adherence to regulations is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate and evaluate the current status of medical personnel, facilities, and equipment in Rugby Union clubs at regional level in England.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey of 242 registered clubs was undertaken, where clubs were surveyed online on their current medical personnel, facilities, and equipment provision, according to regulation 9 of the Rugby Football Union (RFU).
resultsOverall, 91 (45. 04%) surveys were returned from the successfully contacted recipients. Of the completed responses, only 23.61% (n = 17) were found to be compliant with regulations. Furthermore, 30.56% (n = 22) of clubs were unsure if their medical personnel had required qualifications; thus, compliance could not be determined. There was a significant correlation (p = -0.029, r = 0.295) between club level and numbers of practitioners. There was no significant correlation indicated between the number of practitioners/number of teams and number of practitioners/number of players. There were significant correlations found between club level and equipment score (p = 0.003, r = -0.410), club level and automated external defibrillator (AED) access (p = 0.002, r = -0.352) and practitioner level and AED access (p = 0.0001, r = 0.404). Follow-up, thematic analysis highlighted widespread club concern around funding/cost, awareness, availability of practitioners and AED training.
conclusionThe proportion of clubs not adhering overall compliance with Regulation 9 of the RFU is concerning for player welfare, and an overhaul, nationally, is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30368644What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.