Impacts of duty belts and load placement on police officers: A systematic review
-
Published:2024
Issue:2
Volume:29
Page:67-93
-
ISSN:0354-8872
-
Container-title:Nauka, bezbednost, policija
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nauka bezbednost policija
Author:
Berner Nolan, Biilmann Christopher, Hunter Daniel, Canetti ElisaORCID, Schram BenORCID, Dawes JayORCID, Lockie RobertORCID, Orr RobinORCID
Abstract
Background. Law enforcement officers (LEOs) wear duty belts to hold the specialised equipment required to complete their daily occupational tasks. The aim of this review was to identify, collect, and synthesize research investigating the impacts of duty belts and load placement on LEOs. Methods: A systematic review, registered with the Open Science Framework, was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Five databases were searched (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) with identified studies considered against eligibility criteria. Included studies were critically appraised by two reviewers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist or the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Results: Ten studies (mean appraisal score = 79.8%; Kappa agreement = 0.73) informed the review revealing two main emerging themes; occupational impacts (task performance, vehicle duties, and weapon draw time), and movement impacts (balance, gait, and jump-based movements). Nine studies found duty belts and equipment loads, regardless of placement, negatively impacted LEO occupational tasks and movements in general. There were some differences in the nature of the impacts (e.g., areas of pressure with different systems). One study found no differences in performance between hip versus thigh holsters. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that LEO duty belts, their attachments, and the loads imparted by their equipment have a negative impact on performance of occupational tasks as well as officer movement, increasing injury potential. There were some differences in impacts based on load placement warranting consideration and further research.
Publisher
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
Reference67 articles.
1. Anderson, G. S., & Plecas, D. B. (2000). Predicting shooting scores from physical performance data. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(4), 525-537; 2. Anderson, G. S., Plecas, D., & Segger, T. (2001). Police officer physical ability testing: Re-validating a selection criterion. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24(1), 8-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510110382232; 3. Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Health-Care, 13(3), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055; 4. Baran, K., Dulla, J., Orr, R., Dawes, J., & Pope, R. (2018). Duty loads carried by the Los Angeles Sheriff 's Department deputies. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 26(5), 34-38. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=135052308&site=ehost-live&scope=site; 5. Barker, T. H., Stone, J. C., Sears, K., Klugar, M., Leonardi-Bee, J., Tufanaru, C., Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (2023). Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: An overview of methods and the development process. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 478-493. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00125;
|
|