Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30763388›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Characteristics of aquatic rescues undertaken by bystanders in Australia.

Robert W Brander, Nicola Warton, Richard C Franklin, Wendy S Shaw, Eveline J T Rijksen, Shane Daw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Lessons learned from co-designing a high school beach safety education program with lifeguards and students.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Descriptive Epidemiology of Rescue-Related Fatal Drowning in Turkey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Mapping Trends in Drowning Research: A Bibliometric Analysis 1995-2020.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Robert W BranderSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7268-2587
Nicola WartonSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard C FranklinJames Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Wendy S ShawSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Eveline J T RijksenSurf Life Saving Australia, Bondi Beach, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1958-5814
Shane DawSurf Life Saving Australia, Bondi Beach, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0904-3632

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An issue of growing importance within the field of drowning prevention is the undertaking of aquatic rescues by bystanders, who sometimes drown in the process. The main objectives of this study were to describe characteristics of bystanders making rescues in different Australian aquatic environments, identify the role of prior water safety training in conducting bystander rescues and provide insights into future public education strategies relating to bystander rescue scenarios. An online survey was disseminated via various social media platforms in 2017 and gathered a total of 243 complete responses. The majority of bystander rescues described took place in coastal waterways (76.5%; n = 186), particularly beaches (n = 67), followed by pools (17.3%; n = 42) and inland waterways (6.2%; n = 15). The majority of respondents were males (64.2%; n = 156) who rescued on average approximately twice as many people in their lifetime (6.5) than female respondents (3.6). Most rescues occurred more than 1 km from lifeguard/lifesaver services (67%; n = 163), but in the presence of others (94.2%; n = 229). The majority of bystander rescuers had water safety training (65.8%; n = 160), self-rated as strong swimmers (68.3%; n = 166), conducted the rescue without help from others (60%; n = 146), did not use a flotation device to assist (63%; n = 153), but were confident in their ability to make the rescue (76.5%; n = 186). However, most considered the situation to be very serious (58%; n = 141) and felt they had saved a life (70.1%; n = 172). With the exception of pools, most bystanders rescued strangers (76.1%; n = 185).While Australia clearly benefits from having a strong water safety culture, there is no clear consensus on the most appropriate actions bystanders should take when confronted with a potential aquatic rescue scenario. In particular, more research is needed to gather information regarding bystander rescues undertaken by those without prior water safety training.

Indexed as

Rescue WorkAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaDrowningFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSafety ManagementSocial MediaSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30763388
PMCPMC6375621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.