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

Physiological Demands of Common Occupational Tasks among Australian Police Offcers: A Descriptive Analysis

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the physiological demands placed on Australian police officers carrying out common operational tasks. METHODS: Forty participants (n = 40) from an Australian police force (mean age = 33.58 ± 7.78 years, mean height = 177.70 ± 7.28 cm, mean weight = 85.68 ± 14.52 kg, mean years of service: 6.74 ± 6.29 years) were recruited through preidentified local area commands. Spanning nine police stations from the same Australian state, volunteers wore monitoring devices to collect physiological measures (heart rate, respiratory rate, and skin temperature) throughout the course of four consecutive shifts (two day shifts and two night shifts). Descriptive data were recorded and analyzed by task and changes in physiological measures. RESULTS: Of the 345 duty calls attended by participants, the four most commonly reported tasks were as follows: ‘check bona fides’ (n = 76; 22%), ‘driving urgently’ (n = 45; 13%), ‘attending a domestic incident’ (n = 37; 10%), and ‘attending a concern for welfare’ (n = 30; 8%). Mean percentages of maximum heart rates (%HR(max)) were considered of very light exercise intensity and ranged from 47.11 (± 7.18) to 50.15 (± 9.35) % for checking bona fides through to driving urgently respectively. Fifteen percent of tasks attended had officers exceed 100 %HR(max) (near maximal to maximal exercise intensity). Mean skin temperatures varied little (36.02–36.27°C) between tasks, while mean respiratory rates were lowest when attending a domestic incident and highest when driving urgently (22.56 ± 3.83 and 24.72 ± 6.12 breaths/min, respectively). CONCLUSION: Police officers experienced numerous physiological challenges ranging from an intensity of very light exercise through to near maximal and maximal exercise throughout their working day with occasions where their heart rates exceeded 100 %HR(max). These findings highlight the physiological stress associated with common occupational policing tasks, highlighting the importance of cardiovascular health in police officers and the need for cardiovascular monitoring and conditioning

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.

BACKGROUND: Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. SEARCH STRATEGY: Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health-related research. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co-design workshops, we tested evidence-based resources based on the review findings. RESULTS: Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power-focused; priority-setting; study-focused; report-focused; and partnership-focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence-based facilitator notes for a "build your own framework" co-design workshop. CONCLUSION: The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off-the-shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence-based resources which stakeholders can use to co-design their own frameworks