↓ Skip to main content

The perceived effects and comfort of various body armour systems on police officers while performing occupational tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The perceived effects and comfort of various body armour systems on police officers while performing occupational tasks
Published in
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40557-018-0228-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Schram, B. Hinton, R. Orr, R. Pope, G. Norris

Abstract

The 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. A 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. Officers 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. Officers 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 27%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 9 24%
Engineering 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Design 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,936,478
of 12,645,670 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#67
of 129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,610
of 274,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,645,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.