Changchun, China — Safety awareness, health conditions, adequate warm-up, and sports equipment maintenance are among the key factors in preventing injuries among physical education students in Changchun. This finding comes from research by Wang Meng and Julius Simon of the University of Baguio, which developed a weighted sports-risk evaluation framework for students enrolled in physical education-related programs. The study combined responses from 30 students with assessments from 12 experts to create an evaluation system that can help universities identify and prioritize risks in sports participation.
Physical education provides important benefits for physical health, psychosocial development, and lifelong participation in physical activity. However, sports and exercise also involve risks of injury and illness arising from student characteristics, activity demands, environmental conditions, facilities, and institutional practices. Preventing these risks therefore requires more than relying on students’ physical abilities. Systematic risk identification and safety management are also needed.
The study focused on students enrolled in physical education-related programs in Changchun. Rather than simply listing potential hazards, the researchers developed a system that assigns priorities to different risk factors. This approach can help universities determine which safety issues deserve attention and resources first.
The researchers used a sequential mixed-methods design. The first stage involved a questionnaire completed by 30 students. The researchers then reviewed 86 scholarly and institutional sources published between 2017 and 2024 and interviewed 12 experts in physical education, sports medicine, sports health care, clinical medicine, and risk management. These findings were used to identify potential risk indicators, which were subsequently reviewed and validated through two rounds of the Delphi method.
The next stage used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to assign weights to the identified factors. This allowed the researchers to determine which risks were considered most important within the overall evaluation system. The final framework consisted of 32 indicators grouped into five domains: human factors, environmental factors, management and organizational factors, sports activity factors, and social and psychological factors. All AHP judgment matrices met the required consistency standard, with consistency ratios below 0.10.
From the students’ perspective, inadequate warm-up and cool-down practices emerged as a prominent concern. This factor received a mean score of 3.93. Physical fatigue and excessive exertion each scored 3.77, while awareness of personal physical limits scored 3.73. The findings indicate that sports risks are influenced not only by existing health conditions but also by students’ preparation and behavior before and during physical activity.
Academic stress also emerged as an important concern. Among psychological factors, academic stress that reduces concentration during sports participation received a mean score of 3.80. Competition-related anxiety scored 3.67, while pressure to perform despite inadequate readiness scored 3.63. These results indicate that sports safety is influenced not only by physical readiness but also by students’ ability to maintain concentration and make safe decisions under pressure.
Environmental conditions were another major concern. Extreme weather conditions in Changchun, including severe winter cold and high summer temperatures, received the highest environmental rating at 4.20. Poor field or court surfaces scored 3.67, while inadequate sports equipment scored 3.60. These findings highlight the importance of maintaining sports facilities and adapting activities to environmental conditions.
At the institutional level, students gave relatively positive ratings to instructor training in sports injury prevention and first aid, with a mean score of 3.63. However, access to medical support received a score of 3.13, pre-participation physical screening scored 3.20, and systematic updates to safety policies scored 3.23. These results point to areas where institutional support for student safety could be strengthened.
The risk checklist provided further evidence. Sixty percent of students identified insufficient warm-up or cool-down practices as a risk factor. Fifty-seven percent identified high-intensity activities without adequate physical preparation and failure to report minor injuries. Meanwhile, 53 percent identified the absence of systematic health screening, chronic fatigue or insufficient recovery time, and exposure to extreme weather conditions as risks.
Students also strongly supported several risk-reduction strategies. Mandatory pre-participation health screening and the provision of on-site medical or first-aid personnel each received a mean score of 4.27. Integrating injury-prevention modules into the physical education curriculum received a score of 4.23. Systematic inspection and maintenance of sports facilities and equipment scored 4.07, while the development and enforcement of institutional sports risk-management policies scored 4.00.
The assessment by the 12 experts provided a more structured picture of risk priorities. Human factors received the highest criterion weight at 0.4251, followed by environmental factors at 0.2532, management and organizational factors at 0.1505, sports activity factors at 0.0993, and social and psychological factors at 0.0719.
At the indicator level, safety awareness and self-protection ranked first with a global weight of 0.0812. This was followed by pre-existing chronic conditions at 0.0662, inadequate warm-up at 0.0601, insufficient physical fitness at 0.0557, and equipment condition and maintenance at 0.0534. Together, these five indicators accounted for 31.7 percent of the total system weight.
The findings suggest that injury prevention should address both individual behavior and institutional systems. Students need stronger awareness of safety, better recognition of their physical limits, appropriate warm-up routines, and adequate preparation before participating in sports. At the same time, universities need to ensure that facilities are properly maintained, safety policies are implemented, instructors provide sufficient supervision, and emergency response systems are available when incidents occur.
Wang Meng and Julius Simon concluded that the resulting framework can provide universities in Changchun with a structured basis for prioritizing safety education, health screening, facility maintenance, winter-weather hazard control, emergency preparedness, and resource allocation. The researchers also emphasized that AHP weights represent experts’ judgments of relative importance rather than actual injury rates or probabilities. Future studies should validate the framework using larger student samples across different institutions, sports, and seasons.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v5i8.274
Journal Link: https://journaleajmr.my.id/index.php/eajmr
0 Komentar