↓ Skip to main content

Pool fencing for preventing drowning of children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1998
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pool fencing for preventing drowning of children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1998
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane C Thompson, Fred Rivara

Abstract

In most industrialized countries, drowning ranks second or third behind motor vehicles and fires as a cause of unintentional injury deaths to children under the age of 15. Death rates from drowning are highest in children less than five years old. Pool fencing is a passive environmental intervention designed to reduce unintended access to swimming pools and thus prevent drowning in the preschool age group. Because of the magnitude of the problem and the potential effectiveness of fencing we decided to evaluate the effect of pool fencing as a drowning prevention strategy for young children. To determine if pool fencing prevents drowning in young children. We used Cochrane Collaboration search strategy of electronic databases, searched reference lists of past reviews and review articles, Cochrane International Register of RCT's, studies from government agencies in the United States and Australia, and contacted colleagues from International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, World Injury Network, and CDC funded Injury Control and Research Centers. In order to be selected a study had to be designed to evaluate pool fencing in a defined population and provide relevant and interpretable data which objectively measured the risk of drowning or near drowning or provided rates of these outcomes in fenced and unfenced pools. The completed studies meeting selection criteria employed a case-control design. No randomized controlled studies have been identified. Three published studies met selection criteria. Data were extracted by two reviewers using standard abstract form. Odds ratios with 95% CI, and incidence rates, were calculated for drowning and near-drowning. Attributable Risk percent (AR%) was calculated to report the reduction in drowning due to pool fencing. Case control studies which evaluate pool fencing interventions indicate that pool fencing significantly reduces the risk of drowning. Odds ratio for the risk of drowning or near drowning in a fenced pool compared to an unfenced pool is 0.27 95%CI (0.16, 0.47). Isolation fencing (enclosing pool only) is superior to perimeter fencing (enclosing property and pool) because perimeter fencing allows access to the pool area through the house. Odds ratio for the risk of drowning in a pool with isolation fencing compared to a pool with three sided fencing is 0.17 95%CI (0.07, 0.44) Pool fences should have a dynamic and secure gate and isolate (i.e., four-sided fencing) the pool from the house. Legislation should require isolation fencing with secure, self-latching gates for all pools, public, semi-public and private.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 24%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 39%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#733,375
of 13,480,923 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,351
of 10,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,172
of 122,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,480,923 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 122,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.