4.6 Article

Injury rates and injury risk factors among Federal Bureau of Investigation new agent trainees

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-920

关键词

Physical training; Age; Body mass index; Physical activity; Physical fitness

资金

  1. FBI
  2. US Army Public Health Command

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A one-year prospective examination of injury rates and injury risk factors was conducted in Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) new agent training. Methods: Injury incidents were obtained from medical records and injury compensation forms. Potential injury risk factors were acquired from a lifestyle questionnaire and existing data at the FBI Academy. Results: A total of 426 men and 105 women participated in the project. Thirty-five percent of men and 42% of women experienced one or more injuries during training. The injury incidence rate was 2.5 and 3.2 injuries/1,000 person-days for men and women, respectively (risk ratio (women/men) = 1.3, 95% confidence interval = 0.9-1.7). The activities most commonly associated with injuries (% of total) were defensive tactics training (58%), physical fitness training (20%), physical fitness testing (5%), and firearms training (3%). Among the men, higher injury risk was associated with older age, slower 300-meter sprint time, slower 1.5-mile run time, lower total points on the physical fitness test (PFT), lower self-rated physical activity, lower frequency of aerobic exercise, a prior upper or lower limb injury, and prior foot or knee pain that limited activity. Among the women higher injury risk was associated with slower 300-meter sprint time, slower 1.5-mile run time, lower total points on the PFT, and prior back pain that limited activity. Conclusion: The results of this investigation supported those of a previous retrospective investigation emphasizing that lower fitness and self-reported pain limiting activity were associated with higher injury risk among FBI new agents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据