Profiling lower extremity injuries sustained in a state police population: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tactical populations, such as military, firefighter and law enforcement populations, are known to suffer a relatively high number of musculoskeletal injuries, with the lower extremity of notable concern. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the profile of lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries within a state police agency. METHODS: Injury data were collected by an Australian state police force over a 7-year period (2009-2016) and records not meeting the definition for lower extremity musculoskeletal injury were excluded. Statistical analyses were descriptive, with frequencies, means and standard deviations calculated where applicable. Chi-square analysis was performed to compare injury profiles by gender. Ethics approval was granted by Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (Research Protocol 15360). RESULTS: Of the initial 65,579 incident records, 12,452 (19%) related to lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. The knee was the most commonly injured site (31.4%) with sprains/strains (42.3%) the most common nature of injury and arresting offenders (24.2%) the most common activity at time of injury. Slips/trips/falls (37.8%) was found to be the most common cause of injury. Variations were found between genders, most notably within the injury activity (p < .001). 27.1% of male officers were injured when arresting offenders compared to 16.5% for female officers. Walking/running contributed to 17.9% of female officer incidents compared to 9.3% for male officers. The mean number of hours worked prior to injury occurrence was 6.00 ± 3.56 h with significantly more injuries occurring in the middle third of the shift (4.34-8.67 h, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While the proportion of injuries that affected the lower extremity was lower for police, the leading sites of injuries (knees and ankles) were similar to those of military and fire and rescue populations. Variations between genders suggest there may need to be differences in return-to-work rehabilitation.

The effects of body armour on the power development and agility of police officers.

A study was conducted in which 11 police officers wore one of three different types of Individual Light Armour Vests (ILAV), or normal station wear, for an entire day while completing power and agility-based tasks including a vertical jump (VJ), agility test, 20 m sprint and counter movement jump (CMJ). Despite all three ILAVs being significantly (p < .05) heavier than normal station wear, there were no significant differences between any of the ILAVs in VJ, time to complete the agility test, 20 m sprint time, peak force, velocity, power and jump distance in the CMJ. There was a significantly (p < .05) higher mean force produced in the CMJ while wearing all three ILAVs. The ILAV's investigated do not appear to be heavy enough to significantly affect the power or agility of police officers. The utilisation of ILAVs by police officers does not appear to hinder policing tasks that involve agility or power development. Practitioner summary: The addition of the extra load of military-styled body armour is known to decrease performance and mobility. When compared to normal station wear, the wearing of three different ILAV types used in policing do not appear to be heavy enough to affect the power or agility of police officers. Abbreviations: ILAV: individual light armour vest; VJ: vertical jump; CMJ: counter movement jump; N: normal station wear.

A functional movement screen profile of an Australian state police force: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Police officers are required to perform dynamic movements in unpredictable environments, the results of which can lead to injury. Early identification of poor movement patterns of a police population, and potential sub groups within this population, may provide opportunities to treat and minimise injury risks. The aim of this study was to profile the functional movement capabilities of an Australian state police force and potential sub groups through a retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Retrospective data from an Australian State Police Force were provided for analysis (♂ n = 1155, mean (±SD) age = 31.34 ± 8.41 years: ♀ n = 357, mean age = 27.99 ± 8.02 years). Data consisted of Functional Movement Screen (FMS) assessment results of male and female trainees and qualified police officers with all assessments conducted by a qualified Police Physical Training Instructor. RESULTS: Significantly higher (U = 253863, p < .001) FMS total scores were found for recruits (mean 15.23 ± SD 2.01 points) when compared to attested officers (14.57 ± 2.96 points) and differences in FMS total scores also approached significance for females (15.24 ± 2.35 points) when compared to males (14.84 ± 2.55 points, U = 186926, p = .007), with age found to be a key, significant factor in explaining these observed differences (F (1,1507) = 23.519, p < .001). The FMS components demonstrating poorest movement performance across all groups were the hurdle step and rotary stability. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, police personnel (both attested officers and recruits of both genders) of greater age have a lower functional movement capability when compared to younger personnel, with greater percentages scoring 14 or below on the FMS. Specific conditioning programs to improve strength, range of motion and stability during identified key movement types in those demonstrating poorer movement performance may serve to reduce injuries in police personnel.

The effects of body armour on mobility and postural control of police officers.

BACKGROUND: Police officer use of Individual Light Armour Vests (ILAVs) is increasing due to potential occupational hazards that include blunt trauma, stabbing, and light calibre bullets. It is unclear how addition of this extra load will affect the officer's mobility or postural control. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of various ILAVs on the mobility and postural control of police officers when compared to wearing their normal station wear. METHODS: A prospective, within-subjects, repeated measures study was conducted in which officers wore one of three different ILAV variants or normal station wear (N) and acted as their own controls. Officer mobility was assessed via the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and postural sway (including total sway, average sway velocity, medial-lateral velocity, anterior-posterior velocity, and total excursion area) via force plate. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between ILAV or N conditions in various components of the FMS, including right Straight Leg Raise, left shoulder mobility, and both right and left quad rotary stability. No significant differences were found in any of the balance measures between these conditions. CONCLUSION: It appears ILAVs can significantly affect police officer mobility and therefore may contribute to injury risk and decreased ability to complete occupational tasks, though this should be weighed against protective benefits. ILAVs should therefore be carefully selected to minimise injury risk without detracting from occupational performance.

Comparing the Effects of Different Body Armor Systems on the Occupational Performance of Police Officers.

Policing duties may inherently be dangerous due to stab, blunt trauma and ballistic threats. The addition of individual light armor vests (ILAVs) has been suggested as a means to protect officers. However, the addition of the extra load of the ILAV may affect officer ability to conduct occupational tasks. The purpose of this study was to determine if wearing any of three different ILAVs made by different companies with their preferred materials and designs (ILAV A, 4.68 percent body weight, ILAV B, 4.05 percent body weight, & ILAV C, 3.71 percent body weight) affected occupational task performance when compared to that in normal station wear. A prospective, within-subjects repeated measures design was employed, using a counterbalanced randomization in which each ILAV was worn for an entire day while officers completed a variety of occupationally relevant tasks. These tasks included a victim drag, car exit and 5-meter sprint, step down and marksmanship task. To compare the effects of the ILAVs on these tasks, a multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with post hoc pairwise comparisons using a Bonferroni adjustment. Results showed that performance in each task did not vary between any of the ILAV or normal station wear conditions. There was less variability in the marksmanship task with ILAV B, however. The results suggest that none of the ILAVs used in this study were heavy enough to significantly affect task performance in the assessed tasks when compared to wearing normal station wear.