Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12624000094572
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
22/12/2023
Date registered
2/02/2024
Date last updated
2/02/2024
Date data sharing statement initially provided
2/02/2024
Date results provided
2/02/2024
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
From minds to mindsets: drowning interventions and a pathway to the population-scale impacts
Query!
Scientific title
Assessing the impact of relationship building between lifeguards and beachgoers on beach behavior through the delivery of skill development sessions on the beach.
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
311242
0
None
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Drowning
332455
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health
329149
329149
0
0
Query!
Health promotion/education
Query!
Injuries and Accidents
329309
329309
0
0
Query!
Other injuries and accidents
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Existing interventions for drowning prevention presume that awareness translates into changed behaviors and rely on ineffective mass communications to progress from individual- to population-scale impact. The quasi-experimental intervention developed here uses a 20-minute beach safety lesson delivered by lifeguards at the beach on the topics of: what the beach safety flags mean, how to identify a rip current, how to safely escape a rip current, and how to safely perform a bystander rescue. Lessons are delivered three times a day at 11am, 1 pm and 3 pm. There will be 10 participants in each lesson. Each participant in the intervention (i.e., lesson) is expected to have attended one lesson and participated in a meaningful engagement that is designed to encourage active reflection that can generate learning and the adoption of risk mitigation behaviors that spillover to non-participants and to other contexts. In our engagements, ‘active processing’ is oriented towards ‘the self’, asking participants to actively consider their own perceptions and behaviors in the context of having just experienced a lesson situated on the beach concerning drowning prevention. Our contention is that external efforts to convince participants through appeals to sympathy might be improved through active personal perspective-experiences, and that reflection on personal experience offers a more situated and persuasive impact pathway towards lasting adoption of drowning prevention behaviors. Strategies used to monitor adherence to the intervention are twofold. The first includes participation in a mixed quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interview after participation in the lesson that is designed to assess the impact of the lesson. The second is by conducting follow-up interviews six months following the intervention to assess the impact of the lesson, over time.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
327698
0
Behaviour
Query!
Intervention code [2]
327793
0
Prevention
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
A control sample will also be collected in the same location in the two days following the intervention, with those participants engaged using the same approach, including follow-up interviews six months later. The control sample will however not participate in a safety lesson. The main difference is intervention group will participate in a safety lesson and the control sample will not. This is because we want to assess the impact of participation in a safety lesson on beach going behavior (i.e., intervention) with those who do not (i.e., control).
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
336981
0
A composite primary outcome is a change in drowning prevention knowledge and rip current risk knowledge
Query!
Assessment method [1]
336981
0
After participation in the lesson, beachgoers were invited to participate in a 10-15 min audio recorded survey-interview engagement. Survey-interviews are one-on-one and semi-structured. Quantitative 10-point Likert scale ratings were paired with qualitative interview questions that requested participants to describe, for example, ‘how’ their experience in the lesson will affect their behaviors. Quantitative survey data was collected using Qualtrics, which is a bespoke web-application that allows survey questions to be answered directly via a secure website, while qualitative responses to paired semi-structured interview questions were simultaneously audio recorded and transcribed using the transcription service Otter.AI on a mobile phone.
The engagements ask participants to actively reflect on their past, present, and future understandings of beach risk, including specific questions concerning: risk taking appetites, awareness of conditions, awareness of recent drownings, past experience(s) with risk on beaches, present assessment of risk and risk mitigation on beaches, likely future behaviors, and ending with demographics. With regard to the lesson, participants were asked whether: they had learned anything, found the lesson enjoyable, were likely to alter their beachgoing behaviors, and whether they had suggestions to improve any aspect of the lesson. Lastly, participants were asked for permission to ‘check in’ with them in 4-6 months later during a follow-up interview.
For the control, a slightly modified version of the engagement was delivered, retaining the philosophical commitment to meaningful engagement and active reflection, but removing reference to the lesson (we did check to ensure that they had not participated in the previous days). Identical questions were replicated whenever possible. This model of engagement had been applied during the first phase of the research, demonstrating impacts on perceptions and behaviors, which allows this analysis to compare the effects of the lesson as evidenced in differences between participants and the control.
Learning or change in drowning prevention knowledge and rip current risk knowledge will be measured using Baird, Julia, et. al. (2014) Typology of Learning: cognitive, normative learning and relational learning. Reference for article is below. Baird, Julia, et al. "Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation." Global Environmental Change 27 (2014): 51-63.
Learning is assessed immediately after the intervention and then again during a follow-up interview 6 months after the intervention.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
336981
0
Learning about drowning prevention and rip current risk will be immediately assessed after the intervention and then assessed again during a follow-up interview 6 months after the intervention.
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
430294
0
A composite secondary outcome is a change in drowning prevention knowledge, rip current risk knowledge and behavior
Query!
Assessment method [1]
430294
0
Between 4-6 months following the engagements, the research team contacted participants in the intervention and the control group to undertake a follow-up engagement. These engagements adopted the same philosophy and combined quantitative-qualitative data collection, but were delivered over phone or video conferencing software. Follow-up engagements sought understanding of whether the intervention or engagement had affected: learning, intentions around risk mitigation, behavior changes, spillovers to non-participants, and whether participants applied any learning-behaviors at other locations. Lastly, all were asked whether they had any advice about drowning prevention, learning, and/or behavior change.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
430294
0
Learning about drowning prevention, rip current risk and behavior change is assessed immediately after the engagement but for this secondary outcome, learning and behavior change will be assessed during a follow-up interview 6 months after the intervention.
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
For the intervention, consenting beach-goers that are 18 years old or older and participated in the safety lesson.
Participants in the control must be consenting beach-goers that are 18 years old or older that did not participate in the safety lesson.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
None
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Prevention
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Non-randomised trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Safety
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
5/01/2023
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
5/01/2023
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
9/01/2023
Query!
Sample size
Target
100
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
85
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
VIC
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
315498
0
University
Query!
Name [1]
315498
0
University of Melbourne
Query!
Address [1]
315498
0
University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie street, Parkville, VIC, 3052
Query!
Country [1]
315498
0
Australia
Query!
Funding source category [2]
315606
0
Other Collaborative groups
Query!
Name [2]
315606
0
Life Saving Victoria
Query!
Address [2]
315606
0
200 The Blvd, Port Melbourne VIC 3207
Query!
Country [2]
315606
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Other Collaborative groups
Query!
Name
Surf Life Saving Australia
Query!
Address
Level 1, 1 Notts Ave Bondi Beach, NSW 2026
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
317573
0
Other Collaborative groups
Query!
Name [1]
317573
0
Life Saving Victoria
Query!
Address [1]
317573
0
200 The Blvd, Port Melbourne VIC 3207
Query!
Country [1]
317573
0
Australia
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
314401
0
University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
314401
0
The University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville Victoria, 3010
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
314401
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
314401
0
10/06/2022
Query!
Approval date [1]
314401
0
09/09/2022
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
314401
0
22989
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
The research team partnered with Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA), Life Saving Victoria (LSV), and local council to co-design a learning-focused intervention. Learning had been identified through a pilot study conducted in 2021, in which beachgoers requested skills and opportunities for learning from the beach safety sector. The themes and best practices to be covered in the lesson were drawn from the pilot study, the literature, and then discussed amongst the research team and representatives of the risk sector, including those overseeing lifeguards in the case study region. The lifeguards to participate in the lesson were invited to contribute to these discussions but, being predominantly young university students, were unavailable. A finalized list of 19 actions were identified and incorporated into development of the lesson and into the codebook for measuring impact.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
131454
0
A/Prof Brian Cook
Query!
Address
131454
0
University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie street, Parkville, VIC 3053
Query!
Country
131454
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
131454
0
+61 3 9035 8370
Query!
Fax
131454
0
Query!
Email
131454
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
131455
0
Peter Kamstra
Query!
Address
131455
0
University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie street, Parkville, VIC 3053
Query!
Country
131455
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
131455
0
+61 3 9035 5511
Query!
Fax
131455
0
Query!
Email
131455
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
131456
0
Peter Kamstra
Query!
Address
131456
0
207 Bouverie street, Parkville, VIC 3053
Query!
Country
131456
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
131456
0
+61 3 9035 5511
Query!
Fax
131456
0
Query!
Email
131456
0
[email protected]
Query!
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
Once data has been de-identified, it will be available to participants and via public facing reports and peer-reviewed publications.
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF