(11) FEASIBILITY OF WORKLOAD MONITORING WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT: A MULTI-METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

Survey-based workload monitoring is a time-efficient tool that has grown popular within athletic populations to improve injury prevention efforts. Due to the dangerous and unpredictable nature of their jobs, law enforcement officers (LEO) experience a high risk of musculoskeletal injuries. However, workload assessments have yet to be integrated within public safety personnel.

Purpose: To examine the feasibility of workload monitoring to assess internal workload in LEO using a multi-methodological approach.

Methods: Fifty front-line LEO (18% female; 37±10 yrs; BMI: 29.6±6.6 kg∙m^-2) from four departments completed workload surveys on all workdays for eight weeks (28-30 surveys total). The survey was sent via text message 30 minutes after their shift and a reminder text was sent one hour following to those who had not yet completed it. The survey consisted of the National Aeronautics Space Administration – Task Load Index questionnaire (six questions) and a single rating of perceived exertion. Following the eight-week survey period, participants completed the ten-question System Usability Scale (SUS) and scores were calculated out of 100. Additionally, they reported their likelihood to continue using the workload monitoring surveys on a scale of 0-10. Retention was assessed as the percentage of LEO retained for study period and adherence as the number of surveys completed per individual and collectively within the sample. Workload reports were provided to administrative officials within the departments (n=8) and they completed questionnaires regarding utility and sustainability on scales 0-10. A cluster-randomized LEO subsample (1-3 per department) as well as a purposive subsample of administrative officials (one per department) were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews. Once the interviews were transcribed, the data were analyzed and coded into themes and categories, which were determined via consensus of a 4-person research team. Quantitative analysis was primarily descriptive and qualitative analysis followed a consensual qualitative research tradition.

Results: Forty-eight out of 50 LEO completed the study (96% retention). Two LEO dropped out for reasons unrelated to the study. Adherence was 94% collectively (range=68-100%) with an average of 1.7±2.1 missed surveys (range=0-8). LEO reported an 88.5±11.1 for usability and 6.8±2.9 for likelihood to continue. Administration reported high utility (9.0±1.0) and sustainability (8.9±0.9). For LEO, multiple categories for workload tracking emerged from data analysis: (1) timing, (2) ease of use, (3) feedback, (4) interface, (5) frequency, (6) text reminder, (7) length, and (8) products. For administration, categories for workload reporting were: (1) timing, (2) captured data, (3) feedback, (4) value, and (5) communication.

Conclusions: These findings indicate high adherence and usability among LEO and high utility and sustainability among administration. Given the overall moderate likelihood to continue use scores in LEO, future work should examine barriers to long-term implementation of this tool. Qualitative findings suggest administrative buy-in and understanding how the data would be used may be helpful if LEO were to continue workload tracking.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION:  The high adherence rates and usability scores found in this study, coupled with the strong administrative support, suggest that workload monitoring may be a feasible strategy within LEO to monitor injury risk.

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by a National Strength and Conditioning Association Foundation Doctoral Research Grant and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (T42OH008673).