New Zealand national injury surveillance proves value of mouthguards
The national injury surveillance system in New Zealand, run by the Accident Compensation Corporation, has once again shown its value in preventing injuries, with respect to mouthguard laws in rugby union. Unlike in Australia, the ACC bears financial responsibility for dental injuries in New Zealand, so there is a much stronger incentive to institute preventive measures. Mouthguard use has become compulsory in New Zealand rugby union to the extent that a referee may stop the game and send a player from the field if he is not wearing one. Although mouthguard use is not compulsory under IRB laws, local New Zealand laws have been strengthened since 1995 to make them compulsory and to make sure these laws are enforced. Since 1995, dental claims in New Zealand rugby have dropped 43%. The rate of mouthguard use has increased from 67% to 93%. The risk for dental injury for players wearing mouthguards is a reduction of 4-5 times. The results from this New Zealand study illustrate how far behind Australia is falling at the grass roots of injury prevention. We don't have any idea how much dental injuries are costing in Australian sports such as rugby league, union and Australian football. We also have very little evidence regarding the rates of mouthguard use and the policies that sports, teams and leagues have with respect to enforcement of mouthguard laws. The Australian government, which hardly funds dental injuries in the slightest, probably feels as though this does not concern them, as individuals are either bearing the brunt of dental injuries or paying out of pocket for the corrective work. It is time though that Australia seriously considers catching up to New Zealand in our treatment of sports injuries. Read the abstract of the New Zealand mouthguard study (Br J Sports Med). Read about the superiority of the New Zealand approach to sports injuries (from Med J Aust). Read a recommendation in this week's Med J Aust for Australia to introduce ministers for Public Health to push for disease prevention rather than just treatment. The creation of such positions may lead to more preventive infrastructure being created in Australia. |
|
