Page 66 - JSOM Summer 2025

TABLE 1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Of the included studies, one was conducted with SWAT per-
Criteria Example(s) sonnel in the United States, across urban, suburban and ru-
36
ral areas of Texas and Oklahoma. The other was conducted
Inclusion within a state-based specialist police unit in Australia. In-
21
Population must contain Studies involving SWAT units, formation about the studies’ aims, data sources, and research
specialist police PTGs, specialist police designs are provided in Table 2. Details of each study’s injury
Data reports on injuries Studies examining MSIs, injury
occurring to or in a specialist epidemiology, injury rates, injury definition, participants, and main findings are summarized in
36
police population incidence Table 3. The study designs were cross-sectional or retrospec-
21
Exclusion tive cohort and the studies were therefore deemed to provide
Non-specialist police Studies involving only general duties levels of evidence ranging between III-2 and IV, as per the Aus-
54
police, highway patrol, military tralian NHMRC guidelines.
police
36
Injuries caused by Studies reporting police brutality, One of the included studies used an online survey to gather
police officers taser injuries, excessive use of force its data, which asked questions about participant demograph-
by police ics, their experience in both SWAT and law enforcement more
Non-musculoskeletal Studies that only examined broadly, their physical and marksmanship training, and injury
injuries fatalities, mental illness/injury, history. This resulted in limited information to form an injury
chemical hazards, or blood borne
illnesses profile, as the study authors did not report on injury incidence,
No full text Studies whose full texts could not types, or mechanisms, or on the tasks being performed at the time
21,36
be found of injury. While neither study reported on broader anatomi-
21,36
SWAT = Special Weapons and Tactics; PTG = Police Tactical Groups. cal locations of injury groupings (e.g. lower extremity), one
of them did report on sub-locations of injury and found that
36
the three most commonly reported were lower back (24.6%),
Results shoulder (12.8%), and knee (10.2%). In comparison, the other
21
included study reported hand/wrist (21.0%), back (16.6%),
The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) summarizes the results and head/neck (16.2%) to be the most common sub-locations
from the search of the literature and the screening/selection of injury. The most common mechanisms of injury / tasks at
processes that followed. The initial search identified 3,266 time of injury were non-compliant offenders, routine duties, and
studies; however, removal of duplicates saw this number re- training (operational), in the only study that reported on injury
duced to 2,162 studies, which were then assessed for eligibility mechanisms. The most common types of injury were reported
21
through title and abstract screening and review. This resulted to be sprains/strains (61.1%), and injury incidence was found to
in eight full text publications alongside an additional one from be 1,347 per 1,000 officers per annum. 21
an expert in the field, which was subjected to the same eligibil-
ity screening process. These nine articles were then evaluated
in detail against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with only Discussion
two being deemed eligible to be retained to form the basis of Only two studies were eligible for inclusion in this scoping
this scoping review. review on injuries in specialist police populations. Injury

FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow diagram showing literature search, screening and eligibility results.
43
Identification of studies via databases and registers Identification of studies via other methods
Records identified from: Records removed before Records identified from:
Identification 1. PubMed(n=1,454) Duplicate records removed
Databases (n=3,266):
screening:
Expert in field (n=1)
(n=1,104)
2. CINAHL (n=275)
3. Embase (n=1,272)
4. OvidMEDLINE (n=265)
Records screened Records excluded by title
(n=2,162) (n=2,145)
Records excluded by abstract
(n=9)
Screening Reports sought for retrieval Reports not retrieved Reports sought for retrieval
(n=1)
(n=8)
(n=0)
Reports assessed for eligibility Reports excluded: Reports assessed for eligibility
(n=8) Not specialist police (n=7) (n=1)

Included Studies included in review
(n=2)

64 | JSOM Volume 25, Edition 2 / Summer 2025