Citation

Naumann DN, Toman E, Bentley C, Beaven A. Int. J. Occup. Safety Ergonomics 2019; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Affiliation

National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital , Birmingham , UK .

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy - Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/10803548.2019.1685278

PMID

31648600

Abstract

Background: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is worn by military personnel to protect from combat trauma. War films may not represent PPE accurately, even when considered to be realistic. There is a risk that the subtle influence of films may subvert the understanding of PPE amongst military personnel, and civilians. Methods: An observational study compared the depiction of PPE within popular war films to real-life. Films were included if they depicted land-based warfare. Depiction of (a) helmets; (b) body armour; (c) eye protection; (d) gloves; (e) combat boots; and (f) hearing protection were compared to benchmarks. Trends in PPE over time were analysed using linear regression. Results: There were 73 combat scenes viewed from 16 films. Combat boots were the most depicted (72 scenes; 99%); hearing protection was the least (2 scenes; 3%). There were statistically significant differences in PPE adherence between real-life and films for all items of PPE (p<0.05), except for combat boots (p=0.621). There were improvements over time for all PPE except for hearing protection. Conclusions: PPE adherence in modern war films is poor, but has improved over time. There is a hypothetical risk that this has a negative impact on perceptions by both civilians and military personnel.

Language: en

Keywords

PPE; compliance; films; injury; movies; trauma