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

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 influencin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Military medicine 2020-02, Vol.185 (1-2), p.170-177
Hauptverfasser: Fallowfield, Joanne L, Leiper, Rachel G, Shaw, Anneliese M, Whittamore, David R, Lanham-New, Susan A, Allsopp, Adrian J, Kluzek, Stefan, Arden, Nigel K, Sanchez-Santos, Maria T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 177
container_issue 1-2
container_start_page 170
container_title Military medicine
container_volume 185
creator Fallowfield, Joanne L
Leiper, Rachel G
Shaw, Anneliese M
Whittamore, David R
Lanham-New, Susan A
Allsopp, Adrian J
Kluzek, Stefan
Arden, Nigel K
Sanchez-Santos, Maria T
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/milmed/usy177
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2430102172</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/milmed/usy177</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2430102172</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-48961dc02f4c0154e765249c5fa4d49b80496943e0ffe027e201e2b3d6eb13483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLw0AQgBdRbK0evcqCFy-xs4881ouUarVQEWoFbyGPWUlNs-1uAubfm5L27Glg-PiG-Qi5ZnDPQInxpig3mI8b17IwPCFDpgR4ARNfp2QIwANPQugPyIVzawAmVcTOyUAAE6FU_pBMl4X7oUbTebVubEuLii5Nm5R0Ulg6MzZDurJJURXV9wN9MujoB_7SJSZl2dK3pK7RPl6SM52UDq8Oc0Q-Z8-r6au3eH-ZTycLLxNK1J6MVMDyDLiWGTBfYhj4XKrM14nMpUojkCpQUiBojcBD5MCQpyIPMGVCRmJEbnvv1ppdg66O16axVXcy5rJ7CTgLeUd5PZVZ45xFHW9tsUlsGzOI98niPlncJ-v4m4O1SffrI31s1AF3PWCa7T-uP9VydHs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2430102172</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Risk of Injury in Royal Air Force Training: Does Sex Really Matter?</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Fallowfield, Joanne L ; Leiper, Rachel G ; Shaw, Anneliese M ; Whittamore, David R ; Lanham-New, Susan A ; Allsopp, Adrian J ; Kluzek, Stefan ; Arden, Nigel K ; Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</creator><creatorcontrib>Fallowfield, Joanne L ; Leiper, Rachel G ; Shaw, Anneliese M ; Whittamore, David R ; Lanham-New, Susan A ; Allsopp, Adrian J ; Kluzek, Stefan ; Arden, Nigel K ; Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0026-4075</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-613X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usy177</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30137495</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Anthropometry ; Armed forces ; Female ; Generalized linear models ; Humans ; Male ; Military Personnel ; Musculoskeletal Diseases ; Physical Fitness ; Risk Factors</subject><ispartof>Military medicine, 2020-02, Vol.185 (1-2), p.170-177</ispartof><rights>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/ . 2019</rights><rights>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/.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-48961dc02f4c0154e765249c5fa4d49b80496943e0ffe027e201e2b3d6eb13483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-48961dc02f4c0154e765249c5fa4d49b80496943e0ffe027e201e2b3d6eb13483</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1578,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30137495$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fallowfield, Joanne L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leiper, Rachel G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Anneliese M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whittamore, David R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanham-New, Susan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allsopp, Adrian J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kluzek, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arden, Nigel K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</creatorcontrib><title>Risk of Injury in Royal Air Force Training: Does Sex Really Matter?</title><title>Military medicine</title><addtitle>Mil Med</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Anthropometry</subject><subject>Armed forces</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Generalized linear models</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Military Personnel</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal Diseases</subject><subject>Physical Fitness</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><issn>0026-4075</issn><issn>1930-613X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLw0AQgBdRbK0evcqCFy-xs4881ouUarVQEWoFbyGPWUlNs-1uAubfm5L27Glg-PiG-Qi5ZnDPQInxpig3mI8b17IwPCFDpgR4ARNfp2QIwANPQugPyIVzawAmVcTOyUAAE6FU_pBMl4X7oUbTebVubEuLii5Nm5R0Ulg6MzZDurJJURXV9wN9MujoB_7SJSZl2dK3pK7RPl6SM52UDq8Oc0Q-Z8-r6au3eH-ZTycLLxNK1J6MVMDyDLiWGTBfYhj4XKrM14nMpUojkCpQUiBojcBD5MCQpyIPMGVCRmJEbnvv1ppdg66O16axVXcy5rJ7CTgLeUd5PZVZ45xFHW9tsUlsGzOI98niPlncJ-v4m4O1SffrI31s1AF3PWCa7T-uP9VydHs</recordid><startdate>20200213</startdate><enddate>20200213</enddate><creator>Fallowfield, Joanne L</creator><creator>Leiper, Rachel G</creator><creator>Shaw, Anneliese M</creator><creator>Whittamore, David R</creator><creator>Lanham-New, Susan A</creator><creator>Allsopp, Adrian J</creator><creator>Kluzek, Stefan</creator><creator>Arden, Nigel K</creator><creator>Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200213</creationdate><title>Risk of Injury in Royal Air Force Training: Does Sex Really Matter?</title><author>Fallowfield, Joanne L ; Leiper, Rachel G ; Shaw, Anneliese M ; Whittamore, David R ; Lanham-New, Susan A ; Allsopp, Adrian J ; Kluzek, Stefan ; Arden, Nigel K ; Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-48961dc02f4c0154e765249c5fa4d49b80496943e0ffe027e201e2b3d6eb13483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anthropometry</topic><topic>Armed forces</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Generalized linear models</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Military Personnel</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal Diseases</topic><topic>Physical Fitness</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fallowfield, Joanne L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leiper, Rachel G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Anneliese M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whittamore, David R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanham-New, Susan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allsopp, Adrian J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kluzek, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arden, Nigel K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Military medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fallowfield, Joanne L</au><au>Leiper, Rachel G</au><au>Shaw, Anneliese M</au><au>Whittamore, David R</au><au>Lanham-New, Susan A</au><au>Allsopp, Adrian J</au><au>Kluzek, Stefan</au><au>Arden, Nigel K</au><au>Sanchez-Santos, Maria T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Risk of Injury in Royal Air Force Training: Does Sex Really Matter?</atitle><jtitle>Military medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Mil Med</addtitle><date>2020-02-13</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>185</volume><issue>1-2</issue><spage>170</spage><epage>177</epage><pages>170-177</pages><issn>0026-4075</issn><eissn>1930-613X</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>30137495</pmid><doi>10.1093/milmed/usy177</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0026-4075
ispartof Military medicine, 2020-02, Vol.185 (1-2), p.170-177
issn 0026-4075
1930-613X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2430102172
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Anthropometry
Armed forces
Female
Generalized linear models
Humans
Male
Military Personnel
Musculoskeletal Diseases
Physical Fitness
Risk Factors
title Risk of Injury in Royal Air Force Training: Does Sex Really Matter?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T02%3A40%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Risk%20of%20Injury%20in%20Royal%20Air%20Force%20Training:%20Does%20Sex%20Really%20Matter?&rft.jtitle=Military%20medicine&rft.au=Fallowfield,%20Joanne%20L&rft.date=2020-02-13&rft.volume=185&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=170&rft.epage=177&rft.pages=170-177&rft.issn=0026-4075&rft.eissn=1930-613X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/milmed/usy177&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2430102172%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2430102172&rft_id=info:pmid/30137495&rft_oup_id=10.1093/milmed/usy177&rfr_iscdi=true