ArticlePLOS global public health2026
An analysis of global legislation and regulation related to drowning prevention.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drowning remains a leading but neglected cause of injury-related death worldwide. While some forms of regulation, such as pool fencing, have demonstrated clear effectiveness, less is known about the broader influence of legislation and regulatory measures on drowning mortality. This study provides the first global analysis of drowning-prevention legislative coverage, utilising secondary analysis of cross-sectional data, to explore country-level associations between legislation/regulation and drowning rates. Utilising the World Health Organization (WHO) Global and Regional Status Reports on Drowning, alongside economic, environmental, governance, and health-system indicators, we assembled a cross-section of 127 countries. We estimated several models that included the full set of national legislation indicators and nine covariates, complemented by a random-forest analysis. Across specifications, we observed no consistent association at the country level between the presence or count of legal measures and lower drowning mortality. By contrast, structural determinants were repeatedly implicated. For example, in our main models, higher per-capita alcohol use was positively associated with drowning mortality (IRR = 1.18, 95% CI [0.99, 1.40]), while better access to safe water/sanitation was protective (IRR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.71, 0.99]). Exploratory interactions examining the influence of institutional/governance capacity suggested that public-pool fencing and, more tentatively, alcohol restrictions near water, were more protective where institutional capacity was stronger. Our findings support the idea that legalisation/regulation is likely to be most effective when embedded within broader investments in infrastructure, service delivery, and enforcement capacity.
Identifiers
What 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.