Impact of a surfer rescue training program in Australia and New Zealand: a mixed methods evaluation

Drowning is a major global health issue, causing approximately 236,000 deaths annually, with the true burden likely higher when including transport- and disaster-related events. Coastal environments present complex and dynamic risks that complicate safety. Rescue and resuscitation are key in mitigating drowning, yet bystander rescue has received comparatively less emphasis. Untrained bystander rescues can lead to rescuer fatalities, and guidance suggests only those with strong aquatic competence, fitness, experience in the environment, and flotation should attempt in-water rescues—criteria often met by recreational surfers. Prior research in Australia has estimated surfers conduct as many rescues annually as trained lifeguards/lifesavers, largely due to their presence outside patrolled times/places. The WHO has identified surfers as a target population for basic rescue and CPR training. However, while programs exist, their implementation and impact have not been evaluated. This study evaluates the Surfers Rescue 24/7 (SR24/7) program to understand its effectiveness on participant knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and behaviors, to further characterize surfers’ role as community/bystander responders in Australia and New Zealand, and to establish best practices for enhancing and scaling such courses.

The background situates SR24/7 within a growing body of literature on drowning prevention, the Drowning Chain of Survival, and challenges of coastal rescue. Evidence highlights risks of untrained bystander rescues and recommends non-entry assists except where rescuers possess high competence and flotation. Surfers’ frequent presence in unpatrolled settings and prior studies indicate surfers conduct significant numbers of rescues comparable to lifeguards/lifesavers. Calls exist for basic lifesaving and CPR training for surfers in Australia, Europe, and elsewhere. Concerns from lifesaving organizations include potential risk from inexperienced surfers attempting rescues; nonetheless, formal surfer-focused rescue training has operated since 2012 with expansion internationally. Despite rationale, program methods and impacts had not been empirically evaluated, motivating the present mixed-methods assessment.

Design: A multi-part mixed methods evaluation resembling a modified type II hybrid design, examining effectiveness and implementation via complementary quantitative and qualitative components. Settings: SR24/7 programs in New South Wales (SNSW), Victoria (SVIC), Australia, and New Zealand (SNZ). Program: ~3-hour free/low-cost board rescue and CPR course tailored for surfers; theory (classroom/beach) and supervised in-water practice; techniques endorsed by Surf Life Saving Australia/Australian Lifeguard Service. Part One (Retrospective survey): Cross-sectional online survey (Qualtrics) of adults (≥18) who completed SR24/7 in past two years (NSW, Victoria, NZ). Sampling via providers’ course records/contact. Measures: 36 items across eight themes (screening/demographics, satisfaction, learning, knowledge check, use/implementation, role/responsibilities, confidence to perform a rescue, future opportunities). Likert scales (mostly 1–7). Composite attitude scores computed (means). Trend analyses by ordinal surfing experience, ability, and frequency via simple linear regression. Open responses thematically analyzed. Part Two (Interviews): Semi-structured online interviews with previous participants who had conducted a rescue post-course. Guide covered course experience and rescue events. Audio-recorded, transcribed, member-checked; thematic analysis followed Braun & Clarke with deductive/inductive coding, reflexive journaling, team debriefs. Part Three (Pre–post test): Analysis of routine pre/post confidence data from Surfing Victoria adult participants. Measures: 1–5 confidence in performing a surf rescue and CPR collected at enrollment and via post-course email survey; linked by email. Age grouped (18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60+). Analysis: Paired t-tests for pre-to-post differences overall and by gender/age (Bonferroni α=0.00625). Rigor: Reflexivity described; ethics approval obtained; Part Three consent waived per national guidelines. Software: RStudio, Tableau, NVivo.

Sample and participation: Part One analyzed 241 valid survey responses (after exclusions). Participants learned about the course primarily via social media (35.3%), board rider clubs (30.7%), and friends/family (24.5%). Motivations included work-related needs, upskilling and confidence-building, desire to help others (mates, family, tourists, unpatrolled locations), and prior incidents. Course impact (quantitative): - Course satisfaction was very high (mean 6.59/7), with no significant differences by ability, experience, or frequency. - Course learning composite scores were slightly higher among less experienced and lower-ability surfers (differences <0.2 across groups; statistically significant but small). - Role-of-surfers composite scores exceeded 6/7 across all categories, slightly higher among lower-ability/experience/frequency groups. Use of skills/behaviors: - 41.9% somewhat agreed or more that they had used course skills. - 62.2% reported increased awareness of others who might be in trouble; 64.3% reported improved ability to identify hazards. - 32.0% reported warning others about hazards more often since the course. Knowledge/safety: - 85.5% identified ensuring personal safety/assessing conditions as the most important first response. - 84.2% correctly identified placing the board between rescuer and victim. Rescues post-course: - 16.2% (n=39) reported rescuing someone after the course, totaling 64 people rescued (53.8% rescued one person; 35.9% rescued two; others three or four). Respondents estimated 40.6% (n=26) of victims would have drowned without intervention. Future interest: - 51.1% interested in an “advanced” SR24/7; 41.5% in refreshers; 22.4% in community call-out teams; 14.9% in lifeguard/lifesaver training, but only 25% of those (3.7% overall) interested in patrolling. Qualitative themes (Part Two): - Surfers as custodians of the ocean; they often fill gaps where/when lifeguards aren’t present. - Strong emphasis on personal safety post-course; participants applied safety-focused techniques (e.g., board barrier) and self-assessment of capabilities. - Preventative actions common: check-ins with swimmers, verbal warnings, early intervention. - Increased situational awareness and confidence; techniques provided practical options during high-stress decisions; in-water practice was essential. - Recommendations: tailor techniques for diverse skill/strength levels and equipment; include CPR/first aid (bleeding control), scenarios without a board, emergency planning; provide refreshers/pathways; plan for variable ocean conditions; targeted recruitment strategies (clubs, industry partnerships, women-only sessions). Pre–post confidence (Part Three, n=235 matched): - Rescue confidence mean increased from 3.2 (SD 1.03) to 4.2 (SD 0.64); mean difference 1.0 (95% CI 0.87–1.13); t=15.53; p<0.001; Cohen’s d=1.16. Improvements significant across genders and age groups except age 60+ for rescue (mean diff 0.74; p=0.007 > Bonferroni threshold). - CPR confidence mean increased from 3.14 (SD 1.25) to 4.18 (SD 0.66); mean difference 1.04 (95% CI 0.91–1.18); t=15.06; p<0.001; Cohen’s d=1.04. All gender and age subgroups showed significant increases.

Findings demonstrate that a brief, low-cost, surfer-tailored training improves knowledge, awareness, and confidence to engage in safer rescues and preventative behaviors, addressing a key critique that surfer rescues may endanger the rescuer. The program cultivated a strong personal safety ethos, taught practical techniques (e.g., board-as-barrier, towing/rolling methods), and increased vigilance and early interventions (check-ins and warnings), thereby potentially interrupting the drowning process earlier. Surfers, being present in unpatrolled places and outside patrol hours, represent a scalable community asset that can complement professional lifeguards/lifesavers amid challenges such as shrinking volunteerism and staffing/funding constraints. Scaling SR24/7-like interventions could substantially expand community capacity for coastal emergency prevention and response. The study also identified implementation best practices (in-water practice, debriefs, tailoring to diverse participants) and areas for enhancement (expanded first aid/CPR content, refresher pathways, communication skills for public interactions, contingency for variable conditions, targeted recruitment).

This mixed methods evaluation shows SR24/7 effectively improves surfers’ knowledge, awareness, and confidence in surf rescue and CPR, with a strong focus on personal safety and preventative actions. The study further characterizes surfers’ important role in coastal safety, particularly in unpatrolled contexts and outside patrol hours. Scaling and refining such surfer-focused training—adding tailored content, refreshers, and clear pathways—could markedly strengthen community-level capacity to prevent and respond to ocean emergencies. Future research should include controlled pre–post assessments of knowledge and skill acquisition, examine long-term retention and real-world outcomes, and explore strategies to broaden uptake and integration with existing lifesaving systems.

Results may be influenced by selection bias (participants self-selected into SR24/7 and the evaluation) and recall bias (though limited to courses within two years; rescue events were memorable). The survey composites did not undergo factor analysis for internal consistency. Qualitative coding relied on a primary coder; interrater reliability (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) was not calculated. COVID-19 impacted course delivery, constraining timelines and recruitment. Pre/post data collection was operationally challenging (variable registration systems, low response to follow-ups). No control group was used to compare knowledge/skills. Course-day ocean conditions varied, affecting in-water practice. Generalizability beyond NSW, Victoria, and NZ, and to non-participants, may be limited.