↓ Skip to main content

Mishaps and unsafe conditions in recreational scuba diving and pre-dive checklist use: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Injury Epidemiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Mishaps and unsafe conditions in recreational scuba diving and pre-dive checklist use: a prospective cohort study
Published in
Injury Epidemiology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40621-017-0113-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shabbar I. Ranapurwala, Steve Wing, Charles Poole, Kristen L. Kucera, Stephen W. Marshall, Petar J. Denoble

Abstract

Recreational scuba diving involves the use of complex instruments and specialized skills in an unforgiving environment. Errors in dive preparation in such an environment may lead to unsafe conditions, mishaps, injuries and fatalities. Diving mishaps can be major and minor based on their potential to cause injury and the severity of the resulting injury. The objective of this study is to assess the incidence of diving mishaps and unsafe conditions, and their associations with the participants' routine use of their own checklists. Between June and August 2012, 426 divers participated in the control group of a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention pre-dive checklist. The current nested analysis prospectively follows the control participants, who did not receive the intervention checklist. Poisson regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to estimate rate ratios comparing written checklist use with memorized and no checklist use. The overall incidence of major mishaps and minor mishaps was 11.2 and 18.2 per 100 dives, respectively. Only 8% participants reported written checklist use, 71% reported using memorized checklists, and 21% did not use any checklist. The rate ratio for written checklist use as compared to using a memorized or no checklist was 0.47 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.83) for all mishaps (major and minor combined), and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.93) for major mishaps. The rate of mishaps among memorized checklist users was similar to no checklist users. This study reinforces the utility of written checklists to prevent mishaps and, potentially, injuries and fatalities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 18 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 17 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 01 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,054,519
of 24,178,331 outputs
Outputs from Injury Epidemiology
#63
of 361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,123
of 320,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury Epidemiology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,178,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 320,952 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.