A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the U.S. Army Assessment of Recruit Motivation and Strength (ARMS) program. | LitMetric

The Assessment of Recruit Motivation and Strength (ARMS) Study was conducted at six Military Entrance Processing Sites during 2005-2006. The objectives were to compare morbidity and attrition of Army accessions who exceeded body fat (EBF) accession standards compared to weight for height or body fat qualified (WQ) and to compare among the WQ subset, those who were physically fit as measured by a 5-minute step test compared to unfit. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to address both objectives. Analysis was performed by gender with the primary outcomes of musculoskeletal injury and attrition. Results were expressed in terms of cost per year of military service. Sensitivity analysis was performed on probability cost estimates. We found WQ female recruits were $5,141 less expensive per year than EBF female recruits. WQ males were $2,785 less expensive per year of military service than EBF male recruits. Among WQ recruits, fit females were $3,638 and fit males were $10,381 less expensive per year of service than their unfit counterparts. The ARMS step test is a cost-effective method to identify physically fit EBF applicants for accession in weak recruiting environments. It also offers a cost-effective method to reduce poor physical fitness associated morbidity and attrition.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00108DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

expensive year
12
cost-effectiveness analysis
8
assessment recruit
8
recruit motivation
8
motivation strength
8
strength arms
8
morbidity attrition
8
body fat
8
physically fit
8
step test
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!