You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ products and services via our site.

Surveillance

Quantifying the burden of injury in ‘data-poor’ setting; a local-need- driven approach?

12 Oct, 16 | by Brian Johnston

Editor’s Note: earlier this year the journal published injury data from the Global Burden of Disease project. In an accompanying editorial I noted that many of the regional or sub-national estimates were “derived from aggregation and extrapolation of limited primary sources “and yet could “become the basis for policy or programming at an intensely local level.”

I saw this as a challenge to researchers, a call to “crowd source” burden of disease data from  the subregions and subpopulations unrepresented, or simply estimated, in the global aggregate. If we identified those needs and provided resources for good data collection, data management and data reporting , the information collected would be immediately useful at the global scale and  – one hopes – at the local level too. 

Dr. Safa Abdalla, a member of our editorial board, approaches that suggestion with some caution and – in this guest post – draws distinctions between the needs and experience of researchers and public health professionals in “data-rich” and “data poor” environments. – Brian Johnston (Editor-in-Chief)

 

safa-abdallaSome parts of the world, typically in the low- and middle- income country classification range, lack solid basic information about frequency and distribution of injuries in their population. That is not to say that they lack the sources or the capacity to measure them, but in those same places, the public health practice machinery had been occupied (not entirely unduly of course) with a cluster of conditions like communicable diseases that international actors have been investing heavily to tackle. In such environment, local objective assessments of all potentially impactful conditions may not have been deemed necessary. As a result, priority setting has been skewed towards those conditions of historical focus without heavy reliance on local epidemiological evidence.
The very first global burden of disease and injury assessment and subsequent versions have highlighted the need to consider the burden of all realistically possible conditions that affect human health – including injuries – in a way that allows objective comparisons and consequently objective priority setting. Arguably, data from so called ‘data-poor’ countries had not always been sufficient and/or accessible enough to feed into these global-level estimation projects and data gaps were filled with an assortment of methods that continue to evolve to date, probably at a rate that surpasses the rate of improvement in the quantity and quality of data from those countries.
The burden of disease assessment methodology is very demanding, not only computationally but in terms of data input, requiring epidemiological estimates at the very granular level of disease and injury sequelae, and synthesizing those into a range of novel summary measures (Disability-adjusted life years for example). Yet, incidence, prevalence and mortality of any condition at a broader level are key inputs for country- or locality-level policy development and health service planning and monitoring. It is in measuring those epidemiological quantities that the value of country-level estimation in data-poor settings lies, without necessarily delving into the complexities (and relatively unnecessary luxury for the time-being) of summary measure calculation. In addition, country-level assessments can uncover gaps in data systems that, when addressed, can create a seamless flow of better quality data for local decision making.
But with whom does the onus of carrying out such local-level estimation reside? Undeniably, global estimation efforts have produced country-specific estimates, stimulated country data hunts that fed data into their machinery and, in a few ‘data-rich’ countries, facilitated full burden of disease and injury assessments too. However, to date, injury burden estimates for the vast majority of ‘data-poor’ countries come from indirect estimation in these global projects. One can argue that alternatively, an approach that is driven by the need for public health action (be it strategy updating or service development) would be the most beneficial for producing estimates for those very countries at national, sub-national or subgroup levels. This approach entails that a local team of researchers, public health practitioners and other stakeholders evaluate all their data sources, use them in a simple and transparent fashion to develop the best estimates that fit their purpose, and take action based on the estimates and other relevant input while also identifying the data gaps and working on filling them. Arguably, informing local public health action should take priority over informing the global view, but global burden estimation efforts can still (and must) benefit from the products of this process. However, the process needs to be driven by local demand for estimates and not by the need to fill gaps for the global estimates. It should also be led, undertaken and owned by local teams of public health practitioners, analysts and researchers. The reason for this is that assessing and using health data are basic public health functions that all public health practitioners and analysts in any country should be capable of carrying out. Relying on external support from ‘global project’ teams to develop country estimates denies public health practitioners and researchers in those ‘data-poor’ countries the opportunity to hone their skills in public health data assessments and epidemiological estimation. It also denies them ownership of any subsequent efforts to improve data availability via epidemiological studies or administrative data collection.
This approach need not be limited to injury burden assessment but is much more needed for that latter. This is mainly because injuries in many low- and middle- income countries had been neglected for so long that epidemiological assessments of other conditions traditionally associated with those countries are likely more abundant. Hopefully as more and more country teams assess, use and improve their own injury data sources, this reality will eventually change.

Safa Abdalla
drsafa@yahoo.com
twitter: @Safa12233

Neuromuscular control program prevents lower limb injuries in men’s community Australian Football

23 Mar, 16 | by Angy El-Khatib

Injury researchers commonly study elite athletes because they participate in athletics year-round and thus have an increased chance of sustaining an injury. However, most athletes participate at the recreational or community level. (According to the NCAA, only 1.9% of American, high school, soccer players become professional players!)

Understanding that there is a difference between the physical profile of an elite player and a community player is imperative for making recommendations for injury risk factor management. The latest publication by Finch, et al. focuses on this matter.

In the current issue of Injury Prevention, Finch, et al. provide more evidence for targeted neuromuscular control exercise programs for decreasing knee injuries and lower limb injuries (LLI). The randomized-controlled trial (RCT) evaluated 18 male, non-elite, community Australian football clubs with data from more than 1,564 people. As profiled in the study, individuals who participated in the neuromuscular control intervention had a reduced rate of LLI as compared to control players.
The intervention was implemented as a “warm-up” prior to training. The program was based on the Preventing Australian Football Injuries through eXercise (PAFIX) study ; the control group participated in a “sham” program that included similar exercises. Although not in the published article, I was curious to know what PAFIX training fully entailed. The PAFIX training manuals include a detailed look at the neuromuscular exercises implemented, including a variety of plyometric training, stability and balance exercises, and change-of-direction drills.

Despite no statistically significant findings, this “analysis indicates that clinically relevant reduced knee injury and LLI rates can be achieved through targeted exercise training programmes in men’s community AF” (Australian Football).

This finding struck me as particularly important because of the vital role of community sport and recreation programs in providing nonelite athletes with the opportunity to gain the physical literacy skills needed to benefit from participation in sport and physical activity.

I look forward to more injury research which could potentially be generalized for nonelite, athletic communities.

“The Beautiful Game”… minus headers?: Discussing USSF’s recent announcement to limit headers in youth soccer leagues

23 Nov, 15 | by Angy El-Khatib

In the United States, sports-related traumatic brain injuries (concussions and otherwise) have been a HOT topic. In 2013, approximately 4,500 former NFL players sued the league, claiming that the NFL failed to educate, manage, and protect its players from head injuries. Judges approved a settlement of $765 million that would fund concussion-related compensation, including medical exams and research for ex-players. This past year, Chris Borland, a 24 year-old, highly revered linebacker, decided to retire after playing only one year of professional football. His reasoning was that football was “not worth the risk” to his health.

The NFL is not the only sporting organization looking at concussions among its players; other organizations include the National Hockey League (NHL) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Most recently, the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) announced that it has developed a set of guidelines for its youth leagues in which it recommends a ban on headers for players ages 10 and under and a limit on headers for players between 11 and 13 years of age. The USSF also developed a standard protocol in which medical professionals, as opposed to coaches or referees, make decisions about return-to-play for players who are suspected of sustaining a concussion.

14922565967_e2b4b490fd_m

The USSF developed these guidelines in response to a class-action lawsuit which targeted six of the largest youth soccer groups, including FIFA, U.S. Youth Soccer, and the American Youth Soccer Organization. The lawsuit claims that these organizations have “failed to adopt effective policies to evaluate and manage concussions.”

But will policy changes – “banning headers” – solve the concussion problem among youth soccer players?

Unlikely.

A September 2015 study in JAMA by Comstock, et al. evaluated trends in soccer concussions among youth players. The study found that the most common concussion mechanism was contact with another player (player-player), not a ball – this is consistent with other literature.

The most common mechanism for all concussions was contact with another player, accounting for 68.8% of all concussions among boys and 51.3% among girls. The most common mechanism among heading-related concussions was also contact with another player, accounting for 78.1% of heading-related concussions among boys and 61.9% among girls.

9642437842_8cbfa99b78_m

Among soccer-specific activities, heading was responsible for 30.6% of concussions among boys and 25.3% of concussions among girls.

The study concludes that reducing athlete-athlete contact across all phases of play – not just headers – would be more likely to prevent concussions. It also mentions that, culturally, banning headers may not be a feasible prevention effort. After all, an integral part of the Beautiful Game is headers (Robin Van Persie during the 2014 FIFA World Cup, anyone?). The soccer community, anecdotally, seems exceptionally resistant to the prospect of banning headers. As injury researchers, we know that one of the most important aspects of a successful and effective public health intervention is cultural feasibility.

With this in mind, I don’t think it is likely the USSF’s announcement about banning or limiting headers will significantly affect the epidemiology of concussions in youth soccer.  At most, this sends a strong message to coaches and brings safety management to the forefront. (The new rule which requires a Health Care Professional, [shoutout to Athletic Trainers!] to be present to make decisions regarding concussions instead of coaches or referees could be positive, though!)

Either way, one has to commend USSF’s attempt at targeted prevention efforts to bring soccer to its high and honorable state:

 

Joga Bonito!

10663859124_2cb86fb8cf_b

 

P.S. – you’re not allowed to make fun of me for calling it “soccer” instead of “football”! 🙂

Howzat?! An Injury Prevention and Prediction App for Cricket?

8 Nov, 15 | by dbui

As the 1st test is underway between Australia and New Zealand at the Gabba, British Medical Journal Injury Prevention brings you an interview with Dr Naj Soomro, a physician with a passion for Technology and Sports Medicine in Cricket. I met Dr Soomro at the National Conference of Sports Medicine Australia last month where I was representing the University of New South Wales Sports Medicine Society, and his presentation was one of my personal highlights of the conference! He presented on a novel Injury Surveillance, Prevention and Prediction App, “Cricket Predict”.

Dr Soomro kindly agreed to answer a few questions for the blog!

Q1. Tell us about Cricket Predict; what is it and how did you come up with the concept?

I’ve been interested in prediction for a long time now. Today, we use technology and science to predict everything from the weather to cardiovascular risk. This carries into Sport as well: If you have a look at NFL, previous injury is used extensively in determining injury risk; Rugby players are similarly triaged using GPS data and the number of tackles per game. My aim was to develop a similar system for Cricket.

Cricket predict is a mobile app that harnesses technology in the surveillance of injuries, measures risk factors for injury and ultimately, aims to predict (and prevent!) injury. By tracking risk factors for injury in real-time, medical and coaching staff can receive alerts when an individual player’s risk profile is high – and interventions can be implemented. Further, whenever a player is injured, there is an electronic injury form which can be filled out through the app that goes onto a central online database, helping with identification of injuries.

Q2. Cricket predict utilises a number of different risk factors to help predict injury, what is the evidence for using these risk factors specifically?
The risk factors that are used in Cricket Predict are all validated in the literature. They include:
I. Cricket workload, such as number of balls bowled
II. Non-cricket workload e.g. Strength and conditioning sessions, cross-training
III. Psychological status – measured by a modified Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire, usually 76 items but modified to 10 items to be cricket-specific and “player-friendly”.
IV. Sleep, a measure of fatigue and documented risk factor for injury, measured by an accelerometer and analysed by Activ Graph.
V. Previous injury profile
VI. Pre-season strength parameters, including Internal Rotation to External Rotation ratio (predicts injury in Throwing Athletes), Hamstring to Quadriceps ratio (predicts hamstring injury)

Cricket Predict’s algorithm incorporates all of these risk factors and displays to the user a graphical representation of the player’s injury risk. However, exactly how predictive these risk factors are in cricket players is yet to be studied and my research group is running a prospective validation study to do just that.
Q3. What are the implications of the findings of this study for readers?
There are 2 main implications of this research:

One of the biggest implications of my research is the integration of technology into Sports Medicine, which I see as the way forward. Its one of the reasons I developed this mobile app. Developing an electronic injury surveillance system makes data collection very easy, and numerous studies have demonstrated that electronic injury surveillance systems are superior to paper-based systems. Additionally, with the advent of wearable technology, large amounts of quantitative data can be incorporated.

Secondly, if the algorithm in Cricket Predict is validated, this research will revolutionise the way that Sportspeople play the game. Based on what we prove and validate, the coaches are going to change their coaching techniques, they will be able to select the best players for their teams, and develop policies for junior players as well.

Q4. Has this type of research been undertaken in other sports?
There is a recent article by Tim Gabbett which studied an injury prediction model in Australian Rugby League in which he was able to predict approximately 50-80% of soft-tissue non contact injuries over the course of 2 seasons. In the course of a tournament, an injury to a key player can change the balance of a team. Even if an algorithm can predict 10-20% of injuries, for an elite team that is very significant.

Q5. This research is heavily reliant on Technology, where do you see Technology and Medicine, or Technology and Injury Prevention going forward?
A lot of data that we get these days is subjective data from players, and I think the best way to quantify data and validate data is to get data electronically from the use of sensors. Sensor-based technology and imaging technology is going to go very far in terms of performance analysis and the usage of physical characteristics of players. I see the usage of wearable technology being really big in sports. What I mean by this is the use of accelerometers or gyroscopes to look at movement patterns, similar sensors to look at medical data such as the amount of perspiration, and the amount of stress hormones such as Cortisol that can be measured in saliva and also in sweat. We can also look at blood sugar levels, heart rate, oxygen saturations – all of these things can be measured using wearable technology which can send wireless information to the medical and coaching staff. One of the most important things coaches can get out of this is the amount of fatigue of their players. If we can use technology to quantify this fatigue, that is going to revolutionise sport.

11123530043_1d28f2fa35_o

If you’d like to keep this conversation going, or be involved with Cricket Predict in the future, please get in touch with Dr Najeeb Soomro via email cricdoctor@gmail.com or Twitter @CricDoctor. Specifically, if you are a cricket club, sports scientist or health professional interested in doing injury surveillance or helping to validate the app, Dr Soomro is happy to share the app with you! 
Let us know what you think @BMJ_IP too!

David Bui is a final year medical student at the University of New South Wales and outgoing President of the University of New South Wales Sports Medicine Society. He has an interest in Orthopaedics, Sports Medicine and Injury – in all forms! @David_Bui_

Dying en route to safety – the mortality rates of refugees to Europe

15 Sep, 15 | by Klara Johansson

Refugees are often barred from conventional modes of transport, and thus reduced to using unsafe means of travel. But people who are running away from horrible risks are willing to take quite extreme risks. Or as stated by the somalian-british poet Warsan Shire “you have to understand that no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land” (from her poem Home, you can read it in fulltext here or hear the author read it herself here).

We’ve seen this over the last few years, when ever-increasing numbers of desperate people attempt to reach Europe, pushed by a number of converging factors (war in Syria, conflicts in Afghanistan and Nigeria, repressive regime in Eritrea – and overfull refugee camps, and instability in Libya, which has previously harboured many refugees). Europe is by no means the most common destination for refugees – millions are displaced within their own countries or harboured in neighbouring countries, often under very difficult conditions – but Europe is the most dangerous destination for clandestine migrants globally, according to the International Organization for Migration.

I’ve been looking for some comprehensive overview of mortality of the refugees entering Europe. There is a lot of data available online, but I couldn’t find any summary of mortality in relation to how many refugees are arriving. So I downloaded some of the available data and made some calculations and graphs, for my own understanding, and now sharing it with you. As always, please let me know if you find some factual errors or missing information (but complete zero-tolerance for haters and demagogues!)

The graph below shows the numbers of arriving migrants side to side with number of deaths (=dead and missing-at-sea), by year and split by which route they arrived. (See extra information about the data at the bottom of this post.) Deaths so far in 2015 are a little over 3,000, of which about 2,800 died on the Mediterranean and about 200 died on European ground. The IOM states that 95% of deaths on the Mediterranean occur along the Central Mediterranean route (going from North Africa to Italy), which we also see here (the red fields). Though the numbers of migrants are the highest in 2015, deaths are lower than in 2011, which is also a conclusion of the latest newsletter of the Migrant Files. This should mean that the overall mortality rate (per number of migrants) is going down. In the left graph, we also see that the safer, Eastern route has increased it’s share in 2015 (as far as I understand, partly from geopolitical reasons). So, have the mortality rates declined per route, or has the overall rate declined because the routes have shifted?

migrants and deaths, low qual smaller

I then computed mortality rates (graph below) based on the two different sources presented above. Combining different sources in this way is of course a risky business, in case they are based on different definitions or such. Or error sources could differ across time for the two sources. For instance, it’s possible that more migrants passed undetected in the earlier years, when Frontex had less resources – but of course, for the same reasons, more deaths could also have been undetected.

Bearing in mind that there are several possible sources of error for the graph below, I still think the graph shows a relevant story. Mortality is indeed down hugely compared to 2011, for all routes and especially for the Central Mediterranean route. Mortality on the Western Mediterranean route (from Morocco to Spain) has kept decreasing. But from 2012 onwards, mortality rates for the most dangerous route, the Central Mediterranean seem to remain roughly the same, despite the large rescue operations. This graph only goes up to July 2015, and the Migrant Files state that mortality rate during June-August has been the lowest since start of data collection, so it’s possible that the graph will change when all of 2015 is included.

The available data is a bit fuzzy still regarding the causes of death (many cases are unclear, so it’s hard to make an overview). For the deaths on the Mediterranean, drowning is one major cause of death of course, while others have suffocated below board or died from dehydration or exhaustion; also some deaths due to fall injuries after being pushed (accidentally or intentionally) and at least two cases of death during childbirth. For the deaths on land during 2015, suffocation seems to dominate (largely inside trucks during transport), followed by traffic related causes – including people hiding under trucks or similar to cross borders, and being crushed after losing their grip –  and exhaustion/dehydration and similar. For previous years, violence and suicide also play a significant role.

Data collection and research on vulnerable, hard-to-reach populations is extremely difficult. The data on deaths I used here have been painstakingly compiled from multiple sources by a group of obviously hardworking journalists; and the data on arrivals are based only on those who are registered. (See more details on data at the bottom of the post.) Both deaths and number of migrants are likely to be underestimated – and the incidence rate of non-fatal injuries remains unknown, along with other information that is vital both for humanitarian efforts and decision-making at the top political level. Maybe some organization could reach out to the refugees and crowdsource information about health, injuries and needs from those who know it best, using for instance a tool like Ushahidi? Refugees and aid workers along the routes have phones, all that would be needed is a central initiative to coordinate and validate the data. And the refugees crossing the mediterranean could maybe be tracked using cell phone data, like one research study did in Haiti, and which is now done at the Flowminder foundation.

For added understanding of the circumstances, turn to professor Hans Rosling:

…and for added understanding of the human side, I share a video from #helpiscoming. But you should have some tissue paper close at hand if you watch it.

 

About the sources:

Number of deaths are available from at least two sources, the Missing Migrants Project of the International Organization for Migration, and the Migrant Files (the latter is a project from a European consortium of journalists). The method of data compilation seems quite similar between the two sources (combining reports from rescuers, rescued, and media). In many cases of boats rescued at mid-sea, they only know the number of missing, and have no actual dead bodies, which mean that the numbers presented here represent “dead and missing”. The IOM numbers are marginally more conservative, but the difference is small. Since the IOM only has data for 2014 and 2015, I chose to use the data from the Migrant Files. The data is available as a spreadsheet from their site; I downloaded it, cleaned up the categorizations of routes, and summed it up by year, so you won’t find these exact numbers on their site.

I picked the data on arrivals from Frontex, the EU border authority. If you follow the link, data from 2015 are available in the map, and data and metadata for previous years are available per route if you click the arrows in the map. The arrivals along the Western Balkan route is a combination of people who already arrived via the Eastern Mediterranean route, and people arriving across land. So some of those who first came across the Eastern Mediterranean might be registered twice.

A Gap in Gun Violence Injury Prevention Data in the United States

17 Jul, 15 | by Angy El-Khatib

Do guns make people safer? Do comprehensive back ground checks limit gun violence in the United States? Which gun violence or firearm safety interventions work in our states? What effect do right-to-carry laws have on our communities?

Nine years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was on the forefront of trying to answer these questions to make meaningful changes and enact policies to prevent injury related to firearms and gun violence.

Last month, the United States House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to reject amendment (19-32) from Congresswoman Nita Lowey that would have allowed the CDC to study whether there was an association between firearm ownership and gun violence.  This isn’t something new. This ban has been enacted since 1996, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) accused the CDC of lobbying gun control. The NRA then helped a Representative to lobby Congress to cut funding from the CDC budget in the exact amount it had dedicated to gun violence and firearm safety research the previous year ($2.6 million).

Although the funding was eventually restored (although continually decreased), research as to the effect of firearm safety and gun violence on public health has essentially been eliminated. Researchers are discouraged from specializing in firearm safety or gun violence due to the fact there isn’t enough funding to support research.

Databases, such as the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), record the causes of all violent deaths; including firearm-related injury and death. However, there are some limitations: this data is voluntarily reported by only 32 states within the United States; incidents which contained missing data elements (i.e. – lacking information on demographics, weapon type, or circumstances regarding the incident) are omitted from the database; and only incidents which have been reported to the police are reflected in this database.

Needless to say, there is a general lack of data and information regarding injury prevention from firearms and gun violence in the United States. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer, but I thought I might reflect on this.

Feel free to share your comments!

Data viz: adolescent injury and mental health

10 Jul, 15 | by Klara Johansson

I’m addicted to interactive visualisations of data, when they are well-made, informative and easy to use. One that I’ve returned to repeatedly is the “GBD 2010 Heat Map“, which ranks causes of deaths and DALY’s globally. The graph is based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk factors Study, an impressive project that aspires to quantify mortality and morbidity globally. (Needless to say, the uncertainty intervals are wider for countries lacking comprehensive mortality registration… but it is especially for those settings that this project is invaluable!)
It’s a quite simple graph, but the beauty lies in how easy it is to shift between the measures, groups and countries/regions you are interested in. NB: The picture below is just a static image showing only the age groups I selected for this blog post, go to the live graph to explore other options than those shown here.

One thing that stands out very clearly in this graph is something we are already aware of: that injury prevention is an urgent issue among adolescents and young adults. Of the top ten causes of death worldwide in the ages 15-19 and ages 20-24, injuries rank as first (road injuries), second (self-inflicted), third (violence), fifth/ninth (drowning) and ninth/tenth (burns).

If we would change* the measure shown to YLD – years lived with disability – the main cause of morbidity for those aged 15-24 is depression; other mental health problems such as anxiety, conduct disorder and substance abuse are also among the top ten (see the graphs for ages 15-19 and ages 20-24 ).
These two issues – injuries and mental health – are not unrelated. Of course, mental health problems are strongly related to suicide and self-harm. But a recent article in Injury Prevention by McDonald, Sommers & Fargo also highlights the complex interrelations between mental health problems and risky driving, a complexity that seems particularly prominent among adolescents and young adults compared to adults. The article is based on a sample of youth and adults who are high-risk drivers, and shows, for the younger group, several significant pathways from depression and conduct behavior to various aspect of risky driving. (Similar results have been demonstrated earlier for example by our own Bridie Scott-Parker, a short report here in Injury prevention, and a path analysis in British Journal of Psychology.)
Thus, to some extent, mental health promotion and injury prevention need to go hand in hand, maybe especially among adolescents.

 

* In the live graph, select the measure you want by using controls in the top panel. Here you can also select age groups, male/female/total and countries/regions. Selecting regions can be a bit tricky, which I find to be the main drawback of this graph.

More background on our blogging team

19 Jun, 15 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

Blog 3: So today I wanted to share some more background on our blogging team. As an applied social psychologist, I find this information very interesting indeed!

What excites you about being part of the Injury Prevention social media editorial team?  

Sheree Bekker: The invaluable conversation that has sprung up around scholarly work through the collaborative power of social media and blogs inspires me to no end. I tend to find more relevant scholarly content through Twitter than through traditional platforms, and Injury Prevention has played a big part in that. As researchers, I believe that we should own our voice on social media, and constructively add value to this conversation.

David Bui: Through my studies in medical school I have seen the costs of injuries to society and individuals worldwide.  This is a great opportunity to harness the underutilised power of Social Media in health promotion and Injury Prevention, across multiple disciplines and multiple borders.

Angy El-Khatib: Being a part of the Injury Prevention social media editorial team is a great opportunity personally and collectively. By being a part of the social media editorial team, I am able to stay up to date on various topics within the realm of Injury Prevention while acquiring different perspectives from individuals from different backgrounds, disciplines, and locations. I’m also excited to be able to potentially increase readership and engage readers to create a conversation around the latest Injury Prevention research and ideas.

Klara Johansson: I am very interested to explore ways to share and disseminate knowledge and research results, outside the “old-school”, regular channels. I look forward to learning from my new co-editors, who all seem to be great communicators.

Joseph Magoola: The opportunity to work and collaborate with a variety of scholars on the injury prevention platform is nothing short of exciting. It also excites and inspires me to have an opportunity to represent Africa since low and medium income countries bear the brunt of the injury burden.

Julian Santaella-Tenorio: It is really exciting to be part of this team and to have a space to communicate and express ideas on ways to improve injury prevention, and to discuss about new studies and topics relevant to this field. I am very motivated to learn more and continue growing as a researcher as I walk through this experience.

What are you passionate about?

Sheree Bekker: Intersectional issues drive my life’s work, and my aim is that my research is, and always will be, an extension of that.

David Bui: Passionate about bringing people and ideas together.

Angy El-Khatib: I am passionate about translating scientific evidence and research into public health action. My goal is to improve the health and wellbeing of myself as well as my community. Outside of my work, I am passionate about health, fitness, and wellness.

Klara Johansson: Open discussions and innovative research in collaborative teams with high scientific ambition + high levels of tolerance and kindness; I also enjoy making difficult subjects understandable to students and the general population. Passions on my free time: nature, gardening, books, movies, writing fiction, playing music (clarinet, harmonium, piano, accordion).

Joseph Magoola: Writing on my social media accounts (facebook, twitter and my blog) as a way of reaching out to the masses. I am also interested travelling a lot, especially by road and as such, ensuring road safety is part and parcel of my aims to contribute towards reducing the carnage of our roads.

Julian Santaella-Tenorio: I am passionate about things that can make people have a better, healthier and happier life. I am inspired by ideas challenging previous knowledge, creative thinking finding answers from different angles, and the power of multidisciplinary groups. That is why I am passionate about public health research.

 

I hope you are looking forward to hearing from our bloggers, starting next month!

More background on our new blogging team

18 Jun, 15 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

Today I will share more about our blogging team members.

Blog 2: Explain your injury prevention research and interests.

Sheree Bekker: My research investigates safety promotion and injury prevention policy and practice within community sport in Australia. I have a particular interest in dissemination and social marketing. The overall purpose of my research is to allow people to be safe, as well as feel safe, whilst participating in sport or physical activity.

David Bui: Undertaking a number of different projects currently; my injury prevention research focuses on Hip fracture and Falls Prevention research, working with Neuroscience Research Australia. I am also looking into Social Media and its utility in healthcare and civilian settings, and I believe that it represents a powerful new medium in health promotion and injury prevention.

Angy El-Khatib: I am interested in integrating public health approaches with athletic training practice. Athletic training has traditionally focused on the individual but may be able to maximize the effectiveness of prevention efforts by using population-level approaches to improve health and wellness.

Klara Johansson: I am not currently doing research on injury/safety. But I am interested in social difference in injury risk – and also how perceived risk of injuries affects people’s daily lives, mobility, fears and physical activity; and how perceived and real injury risks interrelate with each other and with gender and socioeconomics. Main focus on adolescent safety; real and perceived. Also interested in open data and availability/accessibility of injury statistics globally.

Joseph Magoola: My research interests center around prevention of injury, especially through generation of data for evidence-based decision making and policy action. I am also interested in the use of media to disseminate research findings and for advocacy.

Julian Santaella-Tenorio: At the moment I conduct research on policy evaluation, specifically on policies that impact injury-related outcomes. I am interested in looking at substance use policies and firearm-related legislation and their effects on the health of populations.

Tomorrow: Learn about their passions!

Injury prevention and Indigenous Australians

11 Apr, 15 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

Yesterday I came across a report which estimated the fatal burden of disease and injury for Indigenous Australians. Included were estimates of the magnitude of the fatal burden ‘gap’ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The Burden of Disease Study: Fatal burden of disease in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 2010 report includes fatal burden calculations in terms of years of life lost (YLL). Noteworthy findings include

Injuries and cardiovascular diseases contributed the most fatal burden for Indigenous Australians (22% and 21% respectively), followed by cancer (17%), infant and congenital conditions (10%), gastrointestinal diseases (6%) and endocrine disorders (which includes diabetes) (5%). These disease groups accounted for 82% of all Indigenous YLL in 2010.

Deaths in infants contributed the most to Indigenous YLL. The fatal burden in Indigenous infants was largely due to infant and congenital conditions, which includes causes such as pre-term birth complications, birth trauma and congenital defects.

‘Injuries were the leading cause of fatal burden among Indigenous persons aged 1- 34, after which cardiovascular diseases and cancer were most prominent,’ said Australian Institute of Health and Welfare spokesperson Dr Fadwa Al-Yaman.

YLL rates for injuries and cardiovascular diseases were almost 3 times as high in the Indigenous population.

Clearly we need to reduce the injury-related burden for all persons, and for indigenous persons in particular. It is important that we use this information to more forward to achieve that outcome – but, just how do we do this? What are the next steps? How do we start the ball rolling, and then maintain its momentum? I would argue that this is the greatest challenge facing injury prevention researchers and practitioners around the world.

Latest from Injury Prevention

Latest from Injury Prevention