We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Drowning remains a significant cause of mortality among children world-wide, making prevention strategies crucial. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends training children in safe rescue techniques, including the use of basic skills such as throwing floating objects. This study aims to address a knowledge gap regarding the throwing capabilities of children aged six to twelve using conventional and alternative water rescue materials.
Method:
A total of 374 children aged six to twelve years participated in the study, including both males and females. A randomized crossover approach was used to compare throws with conventional rescue material (ring buoy and rescue tube) to an alternative material (polyethylene terephthalate [PET]-bottle). Throwing distance and accuracy were assessed based on age, sex, and the type of rescue tools used.
Results:
Children of all ages were able to throw the PET-bottle significantly farther than both the ring buoy (P <.001; d = 1.19) and the rescue tube (P <.001; d = 0.60). There were no significant differences (P = .414) in the percentage of children who managed to throw each object accurately.
Conclusion:
Conventional rescue materials, particularly the ring buoy, may not be well-suited for long-distance throws by children. In contrast, lighter and smaller alternatives, such as PET-bottles, prove to be more adaptable to children’s characteristics, enabling them to achieve greater throwing distances. The emphasis on cost-effective and easily accessible alternatives should be implemented in drowning prevention programs or life-saving courses delivered to children.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.