Table 1

Comparison of surface characteristics and height distributions between all play equipment and equipment involving a fall injury, 1995

VariableAverage No (%) of use/child/summer*† (n=118)Equipment involving an injury (n=110) (%)All playground equipment (n=553) (%)Odds ratio (95% CI)‡
*Estimated by adjusting for the relative use of different types of equipment. For height, swings were not included because their height was not available. This variable could not be included in the multivariate analysis.
†Average number of equipment used by one child during a five month period (May–Sept).
‡Estimated by logistic regression with occurence of injury as the dependent variable. Height, surface, g-max, equipment type, and density of children in the playground area were all included in the final model. Mean age of children, proportion of boys in the surrounding area, as well as socioeconomic level of the area were not associated with the risk of injury occurrence and were not retained in the final model. For these analyses, characteristics of equipment involving an injury (n=110) were compared with those not involving an injury (n=534).
§Height was unavailable for swings. It was available for the 93 additional equipment involving an injury and for 356 pieces of equipment in all playgrounds.
¶As assessed by study observers.
**Swings not included in this analysis secondary to missing height information.
CI = confidence interval.
Height (m)§
    <1.529.5 (36.5)11291.00
    1.5–2.019.4 (24.0)19281.22 (0.48 to 3.06)
    >2.031.9 (39.4)70422.56 (1.07 to 6.14)
Surface under equipment¶
    Recommended41.5 (35.2)55391.00
    Non-recommended76.5 (64.2)45610.59 (0.33 to 1.03)
g-max (g)
    <15064.6 (54.8)25551.00
    150–19933.5 (28.4)40291.80 (0.91 to 3.57)
    >20019.8 (16.8)35163.03 (1.45 to 6.35)
Equipment type
    Climber28.9 (24.5)26261.00
    Module10.6 (9.0)41172.17 (1.14 to 4.11)
    Slide33.1 (28.1)11121.18 (0.53 to 2.65)
    Swing37.1 (31.5)1635Not available**
    Seesaw 8.2 (7.0) 6101.36 (0.51 to 3.65)