AUTHOR=Ruan Yi , Song Shang-jin , Yin Zi-fei , Wang Man , Huang Nian , Gu Wei , Ling Chang-quan 

TITLE=Comprehensive evaluation of military training-induced fatigue among soldiers in China: A Delphi consensus study

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Public Health

VOLUME=10

YEAR=2022

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1004910

DOI=10.3389/fpubh.2022.1004910

ISSN=2296-2565

ABSTRACT=<sec><title>Objective</title><p>Military training-induced fatigue (MIF) often results into non-combat attrition. However, standard evaluation of MIF is unavailable. This study aimed to provide credible suggestions about MIF-evaluation.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>A 3-round Delphi study was performed. The authority of the experts was assessed by the authority coefficient (<italic>Aa</italic>). In round 1, categories of indicators were collected <italic>via</italic> anonymous survey of experts, then potential indicators were selected <italic>via</italic> literature search. In round 2, experts should evaluate the clinical implication, practical value, and importance of each potential indicators, or recommend new indicators based on feedback of round 1. Indicators with recommendation proportions ≥ 70% and new recommended indicators would be included in round 3 to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale. “Consensus in” was achieved when coefficient of concordance (Kendall's <italic>W</italic>) of a round was between 0.2 and 0.5 and the coefficient of variation (<italic>CV</italic>) of each aspect for an indicator was &lt; 0.5. If round 3 could not achieve “consensus in,” more rounds would be conducted iteratively based on round 3. Indicators included in the recommendation set were ultimately classified into grade I (highly recommended) or grade II (recommended) according to the mean score and <italic>CV</italic> of the aspects.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Twenty-three experts participated with credible authority coefficient (mean <italic>Aa</italic> = 0.733). “Consensus in” was achieved in round 3 (Kendall's <italic>W</italic> = 0.435, <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001; all <italic>CV</italic> &lt; 0.5). Round 1 recommended 10 categories with 73 indicators identified from 2,971 articles. After 3-round consultation, consensus was reached on 28 indicators focusing on the cardiovascular system (<italic>n</italic> = 4), oxygen transport system (<italic>n</italic> = 5), energy metabolism/metabolite level (<italic>n</italic> = 6), muscle/tissue damage level (<italic>n</italic> = 3), neurological function (<italic>n</italic> = 2), neuropsychological/psychological function (<italic>n</italic> = 3), endocrine function (<italic>n</italic> = 3), and exercise capacity (<italic>n</italic> = 2). Among these, 11 indicators were recommended as grade I: basic heart rate, heart-rate recovery time, heart rate variability, hemoglobin, blood lactic acid, urine protein, creatine kinase, reaction time, Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, testosterone/cortisol, and vertical jump height.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>This study developed a reliable foundation for the comprehensive evaluation of MIF among soldiers.</p></sec>