LJ 10 Develop Risk Assessment Process to Identify Impact of Life Jacket Wear on Drowning Rates
Develop and implement a risk assessment process to identify situations and locations where required life jacket wear and enforcement would have the greatest impact on drowning rates.
Spectrum level: Changing Organizational Practices
Evidence level: Medium
Rationale:
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the first step in developing strategies and actions is to conduct a situational assessment. This will help determine where the issues are occurring and which interventions are likely to make the most impact.
Based on 2020 U.S. Coast Guard boating accident data, where cause of death was known, 75% of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those drowning victims where information on life jacket usage was included, 86% were not wearing a life jacket.
Evidence shows that unintentional drowning ranks the highest for leading cause of unintentional injury deaths in the U.S. for ages 1-4 (61.6% male), second highest for ages 5-9 (73.7% male) and ages 10-14 (77% male), third highest for ages 15-24 (88% male) and ages 25-34 (82.5% male), and fourth highest for ages 35-44 (78.3% male) and ages 45-54 (79% male). Regarding all ages, unintentional drowning ranks sixth overall (75.4% male) (CDC Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, 2019).
Finally, open water drowning risks are increasing, which include, but are not limited to, increases in incidents due to weather like flooding.
Anticipated Impact:
After implementing this recommendation, you can expect to experience the following outcomes.
- Increased identification of situations and locations for required life jacket wear and enforcement.
Evidence:
There is evidence that higher life jacket use is strongly associated with laws requiring their use.
A number of jurisdictions recommend conducting a situational analysis to inform context-specific action. For example: - The UK Drowning Prevention Strategy states that every community should, at minimum, perform a robust risk assessment on the issue of drowning and develop a subsequent water safety plan. - The Australian Water Safety Strategy links data assessment action - The Canadian Drowning Prevention Plan explicitly calls out the need for communities to conduct situational assessments.
Evidence Sources:
Chung C., Quan L., Bennett E., Kernic M.A., & Ebel B.E. (2014). Informing policy on open water drowning prevention: An observational survey of life jacket use in Washington State. Injury Prevention, 20(4), 238-243. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2013-041005.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2010) Mandatory life jacket study/test. U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings. https://cdn.ymaws.com/aca.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/spp-documents/usacepfdstudy&test.pdf
Moreland B., Ortmann N., & Clemens T. (2022). Increased unintentional drowning deaths in 2020 by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and location, United States. Journal of Safety Research, 82, 463-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.06.012
Examples of calls for situational analysis to inform context specific action: - World Health Organization. (2017). Preventing drowning: an implementation guide. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/preventing-drowning-an-implementation-guide
National Water Safety Forum. (2015). A future without drowning: The UK drowning prevention strategy 2016-2026. https://www.nationalwatersafety.org.uk/media/1005/uk-drowning-prevention-strategy.pdf
Australian Water Safety Council. (2016). Australian water safety strategy consultation draft 2016-2020. Australian Water Safety Council. https://www.royallifesaving.com.au/__data/assets/pdffile/0020/37253/RLSAWSS2016Report2016LR.pdf
Canadian Drowning Prevention Coalition. (2020). Canadian drowning prevention plan (6th ed.). https://www.lifesaving.bc.ca/Areas/Admin/Content/images/PageResourceFilePdfUpload/PageResourceFilePdf/Resource5329335CanadianDrowningPreventionPlan-6thedition,May2020.pdf
High Risk Populations Addressed:
All populations can benefit from implementation of this recommendation.
All populations can benefit from implementation of this recommendation.
Evaluation Metrics:
Indicators for long-term impact:
- Decreases in drowning across aquatic activity type
- Increases in life jacket wear
Indicators for intermediate impact:
- Data needed to support use of a risk assessment tool are collected and utilized
Indicators for initial impact:
- A risk assessment tool has been developed and widely disseminated
- Organizations have agreed to adopt and use the risk assessment tool
Implementation:
Consider the following to ensure successful implementation:
- Determine how detailed the process will be based on the size and scope of implementation.
- Discuss process development and implementation with others that have initiated something similar.
- Monitor and evaluate whether the risk assessments are influencing life jacket wear and reducing drowning on a regular basis.
- Interview those that pursued and achieved passage of local, state, and federal laws to determine what information was useful in making a case for that law, regulation, or ordinance (e.g., States of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia).
- Specify boating and non-boating including waders, fisher people, swimmers, camp participants, etc.
- Consider including boat and other watercraft rentals as stakeholder groups.
- Engage insurance companies as potential partners.
- Collaborate and gather information according to the scope of implementation.
- Consider that the managing agencies of a body of water, whether it is at the federal, state, or local, may be able to put policies and requirements in place regarding mandatory life jacket wear (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
Challenges to Implementation:
When implementing this recommendation, you might encounter challenges related to the following factors.
- Reaching everyone who could potentially be involved with developing, and ultimately using, a risk assessment process to identify needs for life jacket wear and enforcement may be difficult.
Potential Facilitators:
The following factors might facilitate the implementation of this recommendation.
- Agencies or organizations that manage a body of water, or activity in, on, or around the water, may be supportive of this recommendation and engage in implementation.
- Connect with agencies and organizations that have already implemented this action and have used it to determine their mandatory life jacket wear policies and requirements to learn about the process.
- Development of a standard tool and guidance on its use could facilitate implementation
GAP Recommendation:
Some agencies and organizations at the federal, state, and local levels have implemented required life jacket wear, but it is not well known just how many of them used the action that is described and if they were successful. Research needs to be done to gather information regarding those that have already taken this action, lessons learned, and develop a report that would be useful to others that might be considering taking this action.