Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39995252›Full record

ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2025

Far From Help: Exploring the Influence of Regional and Remote Residence on Coastal Visitation and Participation, Risk Perception and Safety Knowledge and Practices.

Ella G Pratt, Amy E Peden, Jasmin C Lawes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Ella G PrattUNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0009-0008-6234-1341
Amy E PedenSchool of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6424-1511
Jasmin C LawesUNSW Beach Safety Research Group, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6652-3053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore how self-reported coastal visitation, participation, risk perception, safety knowledge, experiences and safety practices differed between regional and remote, and major city residents to inform remoteness-specific coastal drowning prevention efforts.

methodsThis study used data obtained from the annual National Coastal Safety Survey from 2018 to 2023. Data were postweighted proportionally according to age, gender and Australian Statistical Geography Standard classification using 2021 census population data. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses were used to identify key differences in the behaviours, knowledge, and experiences of regional and remote respondents as compared to major city respondents.

resultsA total of 14 210 respondents were included in this dataset. Regional and remote respondents were more likely to visit an unpatrolled beach, particularly when swimming/wading (n = 929, 42.3%; χ DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that future coastal safety research should consider the impact of remoteness to corroborate the findings of this study: that a significant contributor to the regional and remote drowning burden is a lack of access to patrolled beaches.

conclusionsRegional and remote residents are more likely to frequent unpatrolled beaches but, if able to visit a patrolled beach, are just as likely as major city residents to adhere to safety practices.

Indexed as

Bathing BeachesDrowningHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRural PopulationSafetyAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39995252
PMCPMC11851053

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.