The acute effects of working time patterns on fatigue and sleep quality using daily measurements of 6195 observations among 223 shift workers

Sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleep disturbances among hospital night workers: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess among hospital night workers (i) to what extent sleep quality, sleep duration and sleep disturbances overlap, and (ii) associations between sociodemographic factors, lifestyle factors and work characteristics and sleep components.

METHODS

Data were used from 467 hospital night workers participating in the Klokwerk + study, a prospective cohort study with two measurements. Sleep quality was measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, sleep duration and sleep disturbances were measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale. The overlap between the three sleep measures was visualized with a Venn diagram and the proportions of overlap was calculated. Associations between independent variables (sociodemographic factors, lifestyle factors and work characteristics) and the three sleep outcomes were estimated using between-within Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

About 50% of the hospital night workers had at least one poor sleep outcome. Overlap in poor sleep outcomes was apparent for 36.8% of these workers, while the majority had a poor outcome in one of the sleep components only (63.1%). Former smoking had a significant association with poor sleep quality. For most independent variables no associations with poor sleep outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that sleep quality, sleep duration and sleep disturbances are separate entities and should be studied separately. Lifestyle factors and work characteristics were generally not associated with poor sleep. Since these factors can have an acute effect on sleep, future research should consider ecological momentary assessment to examine how exposure and outcomes (co)vary within-persons, over time, and across contexts. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register trial number NL56022.041.16.

Impact of fatigue in surgeons on performance and patient outcome: systematic review

BACKGROUND

While fatigue is an inevitable aspect of performing surgical procedures, lack of consensus remains on its effect on surgical performance. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of non-muscular fatigue on surgical outcome.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched up to 17 January 2023. Studies on students, learning, duty-hour restrictions, muscle fatigue, non-surgical or subjective outcome, the weekend effect, or time of admission were excluded. Studies were categorized based on real-life or simulated surgery. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess cohort studies. Due to heterogeneity among studies, data pooling was not feasible and study findings were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

From the 7251 studies identified, 134 studies (including 1 684 073 cases) were selected for analysis (110 real-life studies and 24 simulator studies). Of the simulator studies, 46% (11 studies) reported a deterioration in surgical outcome when fatigue was present, using direct measures of fatigue. In contrast, only 35.5% (39 studies) of real-life studies showed a deterioration, observed in only 12.5% of all outcome measures, specifically involving aggregated surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of simulator studies, along with one-third of real-life studies, consistently report negative effects of fatigue, highlighting a significant concern. The discrepancy between simulator/real-life studies may be explained by heightened motivation and effort investment in real-life studies. Currently, published fatigue and outcome measures, especially in real-life studies, are insufficient to fully define the impact of fatigue on surgical outcomes due to the absence of direct fatigue measures and crude, post-hoc outcome measures.

Fifty years of research in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health

OBJECTIVE

The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health was launched 50 years ago. In this paper we describe how research topics have changed over time.

METHODS

A complete list of all 2899 articles in the past 50 years was compiled. Each article was coded for type of exposure, type of health outcome, research design, first author, and country of correspondence address. Count of citations was based on the Scopus database.

RESULTS

Overall, the attention for chemical exposure in the first 30 years has shifted towards the psychosocial work environment, shift work, and physical work load. These shifts in exposure are mirrored by increased attention over time for mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders. Cardiovascular disorders and cancer have been studied consistently over the past 50 years. Researchers from Scandinavian countries have been responsible for about 50% of the Journal's content, while authorship has broadened to about 30 countries in recent years.

CONCLUSION

During the past 50 years, some research topics have consistently remained highly visible in the Journal, whereas other topics have gained or lost interest. In terms of authors' contribution, the Journal has its roots in research from the Nordic countries, but has evolved over time as a truly international periodical with a well-recognized position in research on occupational health.

Adapting shift work schedules for sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleepiness in shift workers

BACKGROUND

Shift work is associated with insufficient sleep, which can compromise worker alertness with ultimate effects on occupational health and safety. Adapting shift work schedules may reduce adverse occupational outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of shift schedule adaptation on sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleepiness among shift workers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and eight other databases on 13 December 2020, and again on 20 April 2022, applying no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, including controlled before-after (CBA) trials, interrupted time series, and cross-over trials. Eligible trials evaluated any of the following shift schedule components. • Permanency of shifts • Regularity of shift changes • Direction of shift rotation • Speed of rotation • Shift duration • Timing of start of shifts • Distribution of shift schedule • Time off between shifts • Split shifts • Protected sleep • Worker participation We included studies that assessed sleep quality off-shift, sleep duration off-shift, or sleepiness during shifts.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the records recovered by the search, read through the full-text articles of potentially eligible studies, and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with specific additional domains for non-randomised and cluster-randomised studies. For all stages, we resolved any disagreements by consulting a third review author. We presented the results by study design and combined clinically homogeneous studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with a total of 2125 participants. One study was conducted in a laboratory setting and was not considered for drawing conclusions on intervention effects. The included studies investigated different and often multiple changes to shift schedule, and were heterogeneous with respect to outcome measurement. Forward versus backward rotation Three CBA trials (561 participants) investigated the effects of forward rotation versus backward rotation. Only one CBA trial provided sufficient data for the quantitative analysis; it provided very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation compared with backward rotation did not affect sleep quality measured with the Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (BNSQ; mean difference (MD) -0.20 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.28 to 1.89; 62 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (MD -0.21 hours, 95% CI -3.29 to 2.88; 62 participants). However, there was also very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation reduced sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD -1.24 points, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.24; 62 participants). Faster versus slower rotation Two CBA trials and one non-randomised cross-over trial (341 participants) evaluated faster versus slower shift rotation. We were able to meta-analyse data from two studies. There was low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality off-shift (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.23) and very low-certainty evidence that faster shift rotation reduced sleep duration off-shift (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; 2 studies, 282 participants). The SMD for sleep duration translated to an MD of 0.38 hours' less sleep per day (95% CI -0.74 to -0.01). One study provided very low-certainty evidence that faster rotations decreased sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD -1.24 points, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.24; 62 participants). Limited shift duration (16 hours) versus unlimited shift duration Two RCTs (760 participants) evaluated 80-hour workweeks with maximum daily shift duration of 16 hours versus workweeks without any daily shift duration limits. There was low-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit increased sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.78; which translated to an MD of 0.73 hours' more sleep per day, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 760 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit reduced sleepiness during shifts, measured with the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; which translated to an MD of 0.37 fewer points, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 716 participants). Shorter versus longer shifts One RCT, one CBA trial, and one non-randomised cross-over trial (692 participants) evaluated shorter shift duration (eight to 10 hours) versus longer shift duration (two to three hours longer). There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.15; which translated to an MD of 0.13 points lower on a scale of 1 to 5; 2 studies, 111 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.54; which translated to an MD of 0.26 hours' less sleep per day; 2 studies, 121 participants). The RCT and the non-randomised cross-over study found that shorter shifts reduced sleepiness during shifts, while the CBA study found no effect on sleepiness. More compressed versus more spread out shift schedules One RCT and one CBA trial (346 participants) evaluated more compressed versus more spread out shift schedules. The CBA trial provided very low-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in sleep quality off-shift (MD 0.31 points, 95% CI -0.53 to 1.15) and sleep duration off-shift (MD 0.52 hours, 95% CI -0.52 to 1.56).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Forward and faster rotation may reduce sleepiness during shifts, and may make no difference to sleep quality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Very low-certainty evidence indicated that sleep duration off-shift decreases with faster rotation. Low-certainty evidence indicated that on-duty workweeks with shift duration limited to 16 hours increases sleep duration, with moderate-certainty evidence for minimal reductions in sleepiness. Changes in shift duration and compression of workweeks had no effect on sleep or sleepiness, but the evidence was of very low-certainty. No evidence is available for other shift schedule changes. There is a need for more high-quality studies (preferably RCTs) for all shift schedule interventions to draw conclusions on the effects of shift schedule adaptations on sleep and sleepiness in shift workers.

Self-Reported Sleepiness after 2, 4, and 7 Consecutive Night Shifts and Recovery Days in Danish Police Officers

BACKGROUND

Night shift work often implies shorter sleep duration and this can lead to sleepiness, which has been associated with an increased risk of accidents and injuries. The aim is to study how the number of consecutive night shifts affects self-reported sleepiness.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

The study was a quasi-experimental, within-subject crossover study with 73 police officers. Three work schedules of two, four, and seven consecutive night shifts followed by the same number of recovery days, i.e., days worked or days off, was performed by all participants. Sleepiness was self-reported using the Karolinska sleepiness scale (KSS) every fourth hour on the last night shift and the last recovery day in each sequence.

RESULTS

We observed differences in the level of sleepiness between recovery days and night shift days but no differences in the pattern of sleepiness levels on night shift days in the different work schedules. The highest levels of KSS were observed before bedtime (at 07:00 after a night shift and 23:00 on a recovery day).

CONCLUSION

The number of consecutive night shifts did not affect the self-reported levels of self-reported sleepiness among Danish police officers.

A shift to something better? A longitudinal study of work schedule and prescribed sleep medication use in nurses

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether a change in work schedule was associated with a change in the probability of prescribed sleep medication use.

METHODS

A longitudinal study with annual questionnaire data (2008/2009-2021, except 2019) on work schedule (day work only, shift work without nights and shift work with nights) and prescribed sleep medication use from 2028 Norwegian nurses (mean age 31.7 years, 90.5% women at baseline) who participated in the ongoing Survey of Shift work, Sleep and Health (SUSSH). Associations were estimated using a random effects model, and a fixed effects regression model in which nurses were included as their own control to account for potential unobserved confounding.

RESULTS

In both models, day work was associated with a more than 50% lower probability of sleep medication use compared with shift work with nights (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.93 in the random effects model, and an aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70 in the fixed effects regression model). Shift work without nights was associated with a non-statistically significant reduction in sleep medication use within nurses in the fixed effects regression model when compared with shift work with nights (aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Day work was associated with a significant reduced probability of prescribed sleep medication use compared with shift work with nights. This indicates that quitting night work will improve sleep and thereby reduce hypnotic use.