Literature DB >> 30137495

Risk of Injury in Royal Air Force Training: Does Sex Really Matter?

Joanne L Fallowfield1, Rachel G Leiper2, Anneliese M Shaw1, David R Whittamore3, Susan A Lanham-New3, Adrian J Allsopp1, Stefan Kluzek4, Nigel K Arden4,5,6, Maria T Sanchez-Santos4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal injuries are common during military and other occupational physical training programs. Employers have a duty of care to reduce employees' injury risk, where females tend to be at greater risk than males. However, quantification of principle co-factors influencing the sex-injury association, and their relative importance, remain poorly defined. Injury risk co-factors were investigated during Royal Air Force (RAF) recruit training to inform the strategic prioritization of mitigation strategies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort of 1,193 (males n = 990 (83%); females n = 203 (17%)) recruits, undertaking Phase-1 military training, were prospectively monitored for injury occurrence. The primary independent variable was sex, and potential confounders (fitness, smoking, anthropometric measures, education attainment) were assessed pre-training. Generalized linear models were used to assess associations between sex and injury.
RESULTS: In total, 31% of recruits (28% males; 49% females) presented at least one injury during training. Females had a two-fold greater unadjusted risk of injury during training than males (RR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.49-2.10). After anthropometric, lifestyle and education measures were included in the model, the excess risk decreased by 34%, but the associations continued to be statistically significant. In contrast, when aerobic fitness was adjusted, an inverse association was identified; the injury risk was 40% lower in females compared with males (RR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42-0.83).
CONCLUSIONS: Physical fitness was the most important confounder with respect to differences in males' and females' injury risk, rather than sex alone. Mitigation to reduce this risk should, therefore, focus upon physical training, complemented by healthy lifestyle interventions. Ministry of Defence © Crown Copyright 2018. If such material is available under the OGL, then a further acknowledgment will be required as follows: “Reproduced under the terms of the Open Government Licence http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aerobic Fitness; Injury; Physical Training; Royal Air Force; Sex; Smoking

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 30137495     DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usy177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mil Med        ISSN: 0026-4075            Impact factor:   1.437


  4 in total

1.  Risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries in the military: a qualitative systematic review of the literature from the past two decades and a new prioritizing injury model.

Authors:  Stefan Sammito; Vedran Hadzic; Thomas Karakolis; Karen R Kelly; Susan P Proctor; Ainars Stepens; Graham White; Wes O Zimmermann
Journal:  Mil Med Res       Date:  2021-12-10

2.  Mechanical Differences between Men and Women during Overground Load Carriage at Self-Selected Walking Speeds.

Authors:  Kane Middleton; Danielle Vickery-Howe; Ben Dascombe; Anthea Clarke; Jon Wheat; Jodie McClelland; Jace Drain
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 3.  Are We Able to Determine Differences in Outcomes Between Male and Female Servicemembers Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Daniel I Rhon; Tina A Greenlee; Jonathan F Dickens; Alexis A Wright
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-11-16

4.  Factors Predicting Training Delays and Attrition of Recruits during Basic Military Training.

Authors:  Jamie L Tait; Jace R Drain; Sean Bulmer; Paul B Gastin; Luana C Main
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 4.614

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.