Sports death and major trauma numbers - Vic study

[malnar]

Cycling tops the death and major trauma raw numbers list.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/death ... 23cwp.html

[Aushiker]

Cycling tops the death and major trauma raw numbers list.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/death ... 23cwp.html

The numbers are a bit misleading as the cycling number includes road toll deaths, so not comparable to the other sport related statistics.

Andrew

[Aushiker]

The media release from Monash paints a different story ...

Off-road motor sport is the biggest cause of major trauma, injury and death in sport, according to a new study.

In a study analysing sport and recreation related injuries in Victoria between 2001 and 2007, researchers found major trauma, including deaths, had increased by 10 per cent each year with the highest number of deaths attributed to off-road motor sports, including motor-bikes and fishing.

Analysing data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) and the National Coroners Information System, researchers led by Monash University’s Dr Nadine Andrew, recorded 1019 non-fatal major trauma cases and 218 deaths during the six-year study period.

Off-road motor sports had the highest rate of major trauma, including head injury, and death with 119 cases per 100,000 each year, followed by equestrian sports (54), power boating and water skiing (15), and cycling (13). Off-road motor sports (10) had the highest death rate followed by fishing with nine incidents of drowning deaths.

Dr Andrew, from the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, said the figures shouldn't discourage people from engaging in an active and healthy lifestyle.

“Much of the increase in major injuries and deaths can be attributed to increases in major trauma rates associated with off-road motor sports, cycling and Australian football,” Dr Andrew said.

“These results highlight the need for co-ordinated injury prevention, particularly within the areas most at risk and we hope it will assist sporting industries to implement programs to reduce injuries.

“It’s important to note that people involved in sport have only a small chance of trauma, injury or death so compared to the health benefits, the risk is considerably low.”

Head injury (21 per cent), was the most common injury followed by injuries to the spine (16 per cent).

Other sporting activities considered life threatening or likely to cause injury were power boating, ice and snow sports, Australian rules football and swimming. Fishing had a high death rate but no major injuries.

Andrew

[rkelsen]

Why did they stop counting after 2007?

Compare these stats from the TAC:

Daily road toll update

Calendar year to midnight 31 July 2012

a - Road user
b - 2011
c - 2012
d - 5 year average

a - Bicyclist
b - 5
c - 5
d - 3

a - Driver
b - 78
c - 80
d - 84

a - Motorcyclist
b - 33
c - 21
d - 26

a - Passenger
b - 39
c - 30
d - 38

a - Pedestrian
b - 27
c - 23
d - 28

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/statistic ... =1&navID=2

In the last 7 months, more drivers have died than cyclists in the last 12 years put together. 1 driver dies every 2.5 days. The equivalent statistic for cyclists is 73 days.

The chances of dying or suffering major trauma in a car are far greater than they are by participating in any sports. If you were a player driving to a footy match, you'd be hundreds of times more likely to be severly injured on the road than on the field.

I don't know why they chose to ignore this elephant in the room when writing this article. Is it meant to scare people off sports?

[Aushiker]

I don't know why they chose to ignore this elephant in the room when writing this article. Is it meant to scare people off sports?

Ahh probably because the study is of sporting incidents not road trauma ...

Andrew

[grasshopper]

What a stupid decision to include road toll numbers in cycling but not motorsport - or walking for that matter - let alone not adjusting for hours of exposure. I'm sure CA could have given them the number of cyclists killed/injured during permitted events.

[rkelsen]

Ahh probably because the study is of sporting incidents not road trauma ...

Yet they saw fit to include road toll numbers in cycling? Seems like a flawed study design to me.

[Aushiker]

Ahh probably because the study is of sporting incidents not road trauma ...

Yet they saw fit to include road toll numbers in cycling? Seems like a flawed study design to me.

Where does it say anything about road toll numbers in the Monash press release or do you have the link to the actual paper where it mentions it?

Regards
Andrew

[zero]

The chances of dying or suffering major trauma in a car are far greater than they are by participating in any sports. If you were a player driving to a footy match, you'd be hundreds of times more likely to be severly injured on the road than on the field.

Thats not actually true. Your entire transport exposure including work and other tasks is more likely to injure or kill you, but your transport requirements related to your sport is only a very small percentage of your total exposure.

[zero]

The study is impossible to frame correctly and thus the cycling numbers are flawed and make the study nonsensical.

The cycling figures include competition sports, leisure and pure transport.
The AFL figures are competition sports only.

Going away for the weekend/holiday/visit relatives is equivalent to the leisure activity component of cycling, and involves people dying in the associated transport tasks. Likewise going out on friday night and driving your car home tanked (whilst the car driving is considered transport, in reality its actually part of a leisure task).

[Aushiker]

The cycling figures include competition sports, leisure and pure transport.

Where do you get that from? Have you got a link to the actual paper?

Andrew

[rkelsen]

Ahh probably because the study is of sporting incidents not road trauma ...

Yet they saw fit to include road toll numbers in cycling? Seems like a flawed study design to me.

Where does it say anything about road toll numbers in the Monash press release or do you have the link to the actual paper where it mentions it?

My post was in reference to the OP.

Specifically, this bit:

* Includes road toll deaths

[zero]

The cycling figures include competition sports, leisure and pure transport.

Where do you get that from? Have you got a link to the actual paper?

Andrew

It might be feasible to read each fatalities police report in the coroners database from 2001 to 2007 and assign purpose of trip to most of them, but its impossible to do for injuries, because hospitals don't record purpose of trip, and the coroners database doesn't have police reports for injuries (and many injuries do not have police reports). ie their injuries must have transport injuries in them for cycling, its really not possible to exclude them, the data doesn't exist to do so.

[Mulger bill]

So, without having read the report or the study, would I be right in assuming that someone has made numbers dance to his/her own tune?