Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Functional Movement Screen as a Predictor of Occupational Injury Among Denver Firefighters

  • Shore, Erin (Center for Health, Work & Environment, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus) ;
  • Dally, Miranda (Center for Health, Work & Environment, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus) ;
  • Brooks, Shawn (Denver Fire Department) ;
  • Ostendorf, Danielle (Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus) ;
  • Newman, Madeline (Springbuk(R)) ;
  • Newman, Lee (Center for Health, Work & Environment, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus)
  • Received : 2020.02.25
  • Accepted : 2020.04.20
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMSTM) is a screening tool used to assess an individual's ability to perform fundamental movements that are necessary to do physically active tasks. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of FMS to predict occupational injury among Denver Fire Department firefighters. Method: FMS tests were administered from 2012 to 2016. Claim status was defined as any claim occurrence vs. no claim and an overexertion vs. no claim/other claim within 1 year of the FMS. To assess associations between FMS score and claim status, FMS scores were dichotomized into ≤ 14 and > 14. Age-adjusted odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression. Sensitivities and specificities of FMS predicting claims at various FMS score cut points, ranging from 10 to 20 were tested. Results: Of 581 firefighters (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9.8 y) who completed FMS between February 2015 and March 2018, 188 (32.4%) filed a WC claim in the study time frame. Seventy-two of those (38.3%) were categorized as overexertion claims. There was no association between FMS score and claim status [odds ratio (OR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88 - 1.83] and overexertion claim vs. no claim/other claim (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.81 - 2.21). There was no optimal cutoff for FMS in predicting a WC claim. Conclusions: Although the FMS has been predictive of injuries in other populations, among this sample of firefighters, it was not predictive of a future WC claim.

Keywords

References

  1. Campbell R, Evarts B, Molis JL. United States firefighter injury Report. In: NFPA journal. 2019. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); 2018. p. 1-14.
  2. Lentz L, et al. The relationship between physical fitness and occupational injury in emergency responders: a systematic review. Am J Ind Med 2019;62(1):3-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22929
  3. Poplin GS, et al. Fire fit: assessing comprehensive fitness and injury risk in the fire service. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2016;89(2):251-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1068-4
  4. Poplin GS, et al. The association of aerobic fitness with injuries in the fire service. Am J Epidemiol 2014;179(2):149-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt213
  5. Cook G, et al. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 1. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014;9(3):396.
  6. Cook G, et al. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014;9(4):549.
  7. Anderson BE, Neumann ML, Bliven KCH. Functional movement screen differences between male and female secondary school athletes. J Strength Condition Res 2015;29(4):1098-106. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000733
  8. Clay H, Mansell J, Tierney R. Association between rowing injuries and the functional movement screen in female collegiate division i rowers. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2016;11(3):345.
  9. Duke SR, Martin SE, Gaul CA. Preseason Functional Movement Screen predicts risk of time-loss injury in experienced male rugby union athletes. J Strength Condition Res 2017;31(10):2740-7. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001838
  10. Moran RW, et al. Do Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2017;51(23):1661-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096938
  11. Tee JC, et al. Preseason Functional Movement Screen component tests predict severe contact injuries in professional rugby union players. J Strength Condition Res 2016;30(11):3194-203. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001422
  12. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason functional movement screen? North Am J Sports Phys Ther: NAJSPT 2007;2(3):147.
  13. Butler RJ, et al. Modifiable risk factors predict injuries in firefighters during training academies. Work 2013;46(1):11-7.
  14. Peate WF, et al. Core strength: a new model for injury prediction and prevention. J Occup Med Toxicol 2007;2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-2-3
  15. Gerkin R, Kelley P, Perry R. Correlation of VO2 max during maximal treadmill stress testing with VO2 at 85% predicted maximal heart rate: a retrospective Review of the phoenix fire department treadmill Protocol. Phoenix, AZ: Phoenix Fire Department Medical Center; 1997. p. 1-4.
  16. Siddall AG, et al. Physical and physiological performance determinants of a firefighting simulation test. J Occup Environ Med 2018;60(7):637-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001313
  17. Griffin SC, et al. Evaluation of a fitness intervention for new firefighters: injury reduction and economic benefits. Injury Prevent 2016;22(3):181-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041785
  18. Smith DL. Firefighter fitness: improving performance and preventing injuries and fatalities. Curr Sports Med Rep 2011;10(3):167-72. https://doi.org/10.1249/JSR.0b013e31821a9fec
  19. Bonazza NA, et al. Reliability, validity, and injury predictive value of the functional movement screen: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2017;45(3):725-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516641937
  20. Grimm PD, Mauntel TC, Potter BK. Combat and noncombat musculoskeletal injuries in the US military. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2019;27(3):84-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0000000000000246
  21. Alemany JA, et al. Functional Movement Screen: pain versus composite score and injury risk. J Sci Med Sport 2017;20(Suppl. 4):S40-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.08.001