ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Characterising Psycho-Physiological Responses and Relationships during a Military Field Training Exercise.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Performance in Young Adults During Three Consecutive Days of Simulated Occupational Heat Stress: An Exploratory Study.American journal of industrial medicine · 2026Trial
- Advancing the allostatic load model in military training research: from theory to application.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Optimising Combat Readiness: Practical Strategies for Integrating Physiological and Psychological Resilience in Soldier Training.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over a 15-day period, that included an eight-day field trial, the aims of this study were to (1) quantify the physical workload, sleep and subjective well-being of soldiers in training; (2a) Explore relationships between workload and well-being, and (2b) sleep and well-being; (3) Explore relationships between workload, sleep, and well-being.
methodsSixty-two Combat Engineer trainees (59 male, 3 female; age: 25.2 ± 7.2 years) wore an ActiGraph GT9X to monitor daily energy expenditure, physical activity, and sleep. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE), sleep quality, and fatigue were measured daily, subjective well-being was reported days 1, 5, 9, 13 and 15. Multi-level models were used for the analysis.
resultsWell-being was affected by a combination of variables including workload, subjective sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleep efficiency. RPE and subjective sleep quality were consistently significant parameters within the models of best fit.
conclusionsPerceptions of well-being were lower during the field training when physical workload increased, and sleep decreased. Energy expenditure was comparatively low, while daily sleep duration was consistent with field training literature. Subjective assessments of workload and sleep quality were consistently effective in explaining variations in well-being and represent an efficient approach to monitor training status of personnel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.