ABSTRACT
Background: Rodeo is a globally popular sport, with its athletes prone to various types of injuries. There is no systematic review discussing rodeo injuries across all age groups. Purpose: To (1) review the published literature on incidence, types of injuries, and factors leading to injuries in rodeo athletes; (2) provide prevention recommendations for health care providers; and (3) identify gaps in the research. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A comprehensive search of available literature was electronically performed through MEDLINE, Embase, and SPORTDiscus databases using the key terms "rodeo" and "injury" or "trauma" between 1995 and 2021. A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, which identified 116 eligible studies. Outcome data included frequency of injuries, risk factors for injury, and types of injury. Results: A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria (N = 2105 athletes), of which 13 were retrospective studies. In the included studies, the injury rate per competition exposure (CE) ranged from 4.2 to 19.1 injuries per 1000 CE. Sprains and strains accounted for the highest percentage of injury types, ranging from 15% to 34%. The knee was the most common location of injury, making up 11.1% to 17% of injuries. Concussions occurred in up to 15.3% of injuries for all events and up to 77% of injuries in roughstock events. Of all rodeo events reported, bull riding caused the highest percentage of injuries, making up 19.4% to 58.4% of injuries, and bareback had the second highest at 15.3% to 28.8% of injuries. Conclusion: There was a high prevalence of various injury types and mechanisms in rodeo. Improved injury surveillance and the introduction of a comprehensive standardized injury reporting system would be helpful in the future prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of rodeo injuries.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The utilization of smartphone applications in educational settings, specifically in the field of nursing, has grown increasingly popular. To date, there have been few, if any, smartphone applications dedicated specifically to the teaching of vital signs. The Clinic Vitals app was designed to be an acceptable substitute for in-person vital signs instruction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to show the utility of the Clinic Vitals app as a pedagogical tool in comparison to in-person nursing educational instruction. DESIGN: A crossover design was employed within collegiate nursing educational sessions to determine if Clinic Vitals was an equivalent alternative to traditional vital sign teaching methods. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were first-year nursing students from six different lab sessions within the same undergraduate university. METHODS: Students with little to no vital sign experience were given instruction via the Clinic Vitals mobile application or traditional learning. After the learning session, students were given skills assessments. After one week, students were given the opposite method of instruction followed by skills assessments. RESULTS: Results showed that no significant difference was found between the two groups based on skills assessments. Mobile application and in-person instruction teaching methods produced a similar level of competency in students learning to take vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of being able to access the application's videos and instructional articles at any time and anywhere that there is an internet connection would make the app particularly useful. The present study provides evidence that the Clinic Vitals mobile application can be a reliable substitute for in-person vital signs instruction. Recent educational advances have demonstrated that online videos, simulations, and mobile applications can be effective resources for nursing educators. There is potential for further study of the uses of educational mobile applications, including Clinic Vitals, for nursing education.
