You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Terrain park feature compliance with Québec ski area safety recommendations
  1. Olivier Audet1,
  2. Alison K Macpherson1,2,
  3. Pierre Valois3,
  4. Brent E Hagel4,5,
  5. Benoit Tremblay6,
  6. Claude Goulet7
  1. 1 Department of Kinesiology, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada
  2. 2 School of Kinesiology & Health Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3 Department of Educational Fundamentals and Practices, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada
  4. 4 Departments of Paediatrics and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  5. 5 Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  6. 6 Québec Network of Regional Units of Leisure and Sport, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada
  7. 7 Department of Physical Education, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Claude Goulet, Department of Physical Education, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada; claude.goulet{at}fse.ulaval.ca

Abstract

Objectives The primary objective of this paper is to examine terrain park (TP) feature compliance with recommendations from a ski area industry guide (are TP features compliant with the guide?) and determine factors that could be associated with TP feature compliance in Québec ski areas (do factors influence TP feature compliance?), Canada. These recommendations on the design, construction and maintenance are provided by the Québec Ski Areas Association Guide.

Methods A group of two to four trained research assistants visited seven ski areas. They used an evaluation tool to assess the compliance of 59 TP features. The evaluation tool, originally developed to assess the quality of TP features based on the guide, was validated in a previous study. Compliance was calculated by the percentage of compliant measures within a given feature. The potential influence of four factors on compliance (size of the TP, size of the feature, snow conditions and type of feature) were examined using a mixed-effects logistic regression model.

Results The average TP feature compliance percentage was 93% (95% CI 88% to 99%) for boxes, 91% (95% CI 89% to 94%) for rails and 89% (95% CI 86% to 92%) for jumps. The logistic regression showed that none of the four factors examined were associated with TP feature compliance with the guide.

Conclusion Our results suggest that TP features are highly compliant with the guide in Québec ski areas.

  • passive safety
  • standards
  • implementation / translation
  • process/impact evaluation

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043629

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available on reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors OA was responsible of the data collection and trained the research assistants. OA and CG developed the design of the original article and were responsible for the interpretation of results. OA, CG and AKM drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript critically and gave final approval of the manuscript.

    • Funding OA was funded through studentships provided by the Alberta Innovates Collaborative Research and Innovation Award held by Carolyn Emery and BEH from the University of Calgary and the Québec Ministry of Education and Higher Education. Alison Macpherson was funded by a CIHR Chair in Maternal and Child Health Services and Policy Research.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.