Objectives To examine the effects of implementing a consequential fitness assessment (pull-ups, curl-ups, push-ups, 3 min step test) in a fire department on an individual level.
Methods We used a repeated-measures design to analyse fitness assessment data from 2019 to 2020 in Northern Virginia. A total of 631 professional firefighters completed the fitness assessment in both years. Repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and multiple regression modelling were used to examine the effects of the fitness assessment and factors associated with changes in fitness, respectively.
Results Overall all aspects of fitness improved over the first year of implementation with a majority of firefighters improved on all components of the fitness assessment except for pull-ups (16.1% improved). Greater levels of baseline fitness and being female were negatively associated with changes in all fitness measures. Older firefighters had smaller changes in pull-up, curl-up and push-up performance.
Conclusions During the first year of fitness assessment implementation, the fire department generally improved. The findings suggest that fire departments which enforce mandatory fitness assessments must establish policies for dealing with inadequate performance and offer resources to aid individual firefighters.
- Occupational Health
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Conceptualisation: JM and RGL; formal analysis, JM and MT; resources, JM; writing—original draft preparation, JM, MT and RGL; writing—review and editing, JM, MT and RGL; supervision, JM; project administration, JM; funding acquisition, JM; guarantor, JM. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.