Abstract
Law-enforcement officers increasingly wear body armour for protection; wearing body armour is common practice in military populations. Law-enforcement and military occupational demands are vastly different and military-styled body armour may not be suitable for law-enforcement. This study investigated differences between selected military body armour (MBA: 6.4 kg) and law-enforcement body armour (LEBA: 2.1 kg) in impacts on postural sway, vertical jump, agility, a functional movement screen (FMS), task simulations (vehicle exit; victim recovery), and subjective measures. Ten volunteer police officers (six females, four males) were randomly allocated to one of the designs on each of two days. Body armour type did not significantly affect postural sway, vertical jump, vehicle exit and 5 m sprint times, or victim recovery times. Both armour types increased sway velocity and sway-path length in the final five seconds compared to the first 5 s of a balance task. The MBA was associated with significantly slower times to complete the agility task, poorer FMS total scores, and poorer subjective ratings of performance and comfort. The LEBA was perceived as more comfortable and received more positive performance ratings during the agility test and task simulations. The impacts of MBA and LEBA differed significantly and they should not be considered interchangeable.
Highlights
Body armour is known to be effective in reducing fatalities in military environments [1]
There were The no differences of the armour worn6.4 bykg, each participant, within each 2.1 body were no differences in weights of the body armour worn by each participant, within each body type, since all five of each type (MBA and law-enforcement body armour (LEBA)) were of the same size
There were no significant differences between the two vests with respect to sway in the anterior–posterior direction, medial–lateral direction, the sway path length (SPL), or velocity of sway
Summary
Body armour is known to be effective in reducing fatalities in military environments [1]. Body armour is no longer used solely by military populations, and the use of body armour is becoming more widespread among law-enforcement officers (LEOs) [2]. Police officers are exposed to risk as street-level bureaucrats handling law-enforcement, violent situations, negative attitudes, and threats from citizens [5]. Law-enforcement officers tasks can range from driving a patrol vehicle to checking an individual’s bona fides and attending domestic violence incidents [6]. On this basis, body amour may increasingly be a more constant, daily requirement for many contemporary LEOs, with limited periods of relief
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
