BackgroundThe nature of police work often necessitates use of Individual Light Armour Vests (ILAVs) for officer protection. Previous research has demonstrated various biomechanical and physical performance impacts of ILAVs, however, little knowledge exists on the individual officer’s perceptions of ILAV. The aim of this study was to investigate officers’ perceptions of the impacts of three different ILAVs and normal station wear whilst performing police occupational tasks.MethodsA prospective, within subjects, repeated measures design was employed in which 11 serving police officers wore each of three different types of body armour (ILAV A, ILAV B or ILAV C) and normal station wear for a full day while performing tasks including a simulated victim drag, a patrol vehicle exit and a marksmanship shoot. Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; − 10 to + 10) were used to examine officer perceptions of each ILAV. Finally, officers were asked to indicate areas of both discomfort and comfort of each ILAV on a mannequin chart.ResultsOfficers perceived less effort was required for the victim drag whilst wearing ILAV B (RPE = 3.6/10) when compared to ILAV A, ILAV C and even station wear (RPE = 4.7/10, 4.0/10, 3.8/10, respectively). A positive impact on performance was perceived for ILAV B (VAS = + 0.26) when performing a patrol vehicle exit and sprint task but not for the other two ILAVs (VAS = − 3.58, − 0.55, − 0.85, respectively). Officers perceived a positive impact of ILAV B (VAS = + 2.7) and station wear (VAS = + 1.4) and a negative impact of ILAVs A and C (VAS = − 2.1, − 1.7 respectively) on marksmanship. Despite all armour types being criticized for discomfort, ILAV B received lower ratings of discomfort overall, and some positive comments regarding both comfort and performance.ConclusionsOfficers perceived ILAV B to have positive effects on task performance. It was also rated more comfortable than the other two, possibly due to a longer torso design which shifted load from the shoulders to the hips and pelvis. Officer perceptions of comfort and effects on occupational performance should be considered when designing and procuring armour systems. Although ILAVs may be similar, perceived impacts may vary between officers.

No abstract

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.

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.

Search and rescue (SAR) personnel may be required to wear and carry external loads during a task. These external loads may be carried in austere environments across unpredictable terrain. Like other tactical occupations (military, law enforcement, fire, and rescue), SAR loads can range from ≥20 to 45 kg. Not only are these loads known to cause a variety of injuries to the musculoskeletal, integumentary, and neurological systems of the carrier, but these loads are also known to impede task performance and have ultimately led to mission failure. Ensuring personnel are physically capable of carrying external loads on tasks is critical to mitigating these potential risks of injury and performance decrements. Optimal load carriage conditioning, following the known frequency, intensity, time, and type of training formula would see SAR personnel conduct a load carriage specific session every 7 to 14 days, with load weights, walking speeds, and durations akin to those typical of their SAR requirements. The terrain types (inclusive of grade and nature of terrain) should likewise form part of this conditioning process. In addition to load carriage-specific sessions, improving strength (notably relative strength) and aerobic fitness should also optimize the load carriage conditioning of SAR personnel.