Cardiorespiratory fitness selection standard and occupational outcomes in trainee firefighters

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background UK fire services have differing practices relating to the use of a cardiorespiratory fitness standard as a selection criterion for recruits.

Aims To establish whether a reduction in, or elimination of, a defined cardiorespiratory standard for firefighter recruitment impacted on a number of occupational and health-related outcomes.

Methods Data were collected on firefighter recruits from services which applied either a minimum recruit cardiorespiratory fitness standard of 42 ml O2/kg/min (398 full-time and 48 part-time recruits) or no such direct standard (198 full-time and 206 part-time subjects). VO2 max estimated, where available, was also recorded and the impact of a reduction in the standard from 45 to 42 ml O2/kg/min assessed.

Results Twenty-five per cent of all recruits reported injury during training. Injury-related restrictions were more likely where no cardiorespiratory standard was applied for full-time recruits. For part-time recruits, higher VO2 max (est.) predicted a lower incidence of injuries. Further adverse health-related outcomes were found for full-time and part-time recruits. Multiple regression analyses suggest that eliminating the 42 ml O2/kg/min cardiorespiratory standard at recruitment for full-time firefighters was associated with an 8% (95% CI 7.16–8.84) increase in subsequent injuries reported during training. For part-time firefighters, VO2 max (est.) was inversely associated with 5% of the variation in injuries (95% CI 4.66–5.34).

Conclusions Removal of a cardiorespiratory fitness standard was associated with adverse health and employment outcomes. Older age and gender were not associated with adverse outcomes. No reliable evidence of adverse outcomes from a reduction in a cardiorespiratory standard from 45 to 42 ml O2/kg/min was found.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles