Search

Self-assessed driving ability may differ from actual driving performance, leading to poor calibration (i.e., differences between self-assessed driving ability and actual performance), increased risk of accidents and unsafe driving behaviour. Factors such as sleep restriction and sedentary behaviour can impact driver workload, which influences driver calibration. This study aims to investigate how sleep restriction and prolonged sitting impact driver workload and driver calibration to identify strategies that can lead to safer and better calibrated drivers. Participants (n = 84, mean age = 23.5 ± 4.8, 49 % female) undertook a 7-day laboratory study and were randomly allocated to a condition: sitting 9-h sleep opportunity (Sit9), breaking up sitting 9-h sleep opportunity (Break9), sitting 5-h sleep opportunity (Sit5) and breaking up sitting 5-h sleep opportunity (Break5). Break9 and Break5 conditions completed 3-min of light-intensity walking on a treadmill every 30 min between 09:00-17:00 h, while participants in Sit9 and Sit5 conditions remained seated. Each participant completed a 20-min simulated commute in the morning and afternoon each day and completed subjective assessments of driving ability and perceived workload before and after each commute. Objective driving performance was assessed using a driving simulator measuring speed and lane performance metrics. Driver calibration was analysed using a single component and 3-component Brier Score. Correlational matrices were conducted as an exploratory analysis to understand the strength and direction of the relationship between subjective and objective driving outcomes. Analyses revealed participants in Sit9 and Break9 were significantly better calibrated for lane variability, lane position and safe zone-lane parameters at both time points (p < 0.0001) compared to Sit5 and Break5. Break5 participants were better calibrated for safe zone-speed and combined safe zone parameters (p < 0.0001) and speed variability at both time points (p = 0.005) compared to all other conditions. Analyses revealed lower perceived workload scores at both time points for Sit9 and Break9 participants compared to Sit5 and Break5 (p = <0.001). Breaking up sitting during the day may reduce calibration errors compared to sitting during the day for speed keeping parameters. Future studies should investigate if different physical activity frequency and intensity can reduce calibration errors, and better align a driver's self-assessment with their actual performance., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Shiftworkers have impaired performance when driving at night and they also alter their eating patterns during nightshifts. However, it is unknown whether driving at night is influenced by the timing of eating. This study aims to explore the effects of timing of eating on simulated driving performance across four simulated nightshifts. Healthy, non-shiftworking males aged 18-35 years (n = 10) were allocated to either an eating at night (n = 5) or no eating at night (n = 5) condition. During the simulated nightshifts at 1730, 2030 and 0300 h, participants performed a 40-min driving simulation, 3-min Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT-B), and recorded their ratings of sleepiness on a subjective scale. Participants had a 6-h sleep opportunity during the day (1000-1600 h). Total 24-h food intake was consistent across groups; however, those in the eating at night condition ate a large meal (30% of 24-h intake) during the nightshift at 0130 h. It was found that participants in both conditions experienced increased sleepiness and PVT-B impairments at 0300 h compared to 1730 and 2030 h (p < 0.001). Further, at 0300 h, those in the eating condition displayed a significant decrease in time spent in the safe zone (p < 0.05; percentage of time within 10 km/h of the speed limit and 0.8 m of the centre of the lane) and significant increases in speed variability (p < 0.001), subjective sleepiness (p < 0.01) and number of crashes (p < 0.01) compared to those in the no eating condition. Results suggest that, for optimal performance, shiftworkers should consider restricting food intake during the night.

BACKGROUND: Residential support workers (RSWs) provide 24-hour care to clients and many work overnight sleepover nightshifts. Although RSWs perform safety-critical tasks and are at high-risk of work stress and exhaustion, the health and safety of RSWs has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This explorative workplace case study explored the impact of support work on the eating and driving behaviours of RSWs. METHODS: Thirteen RSWs who had worked a dayshift (n = 6) or a sleepover nightshift (n = 7) completed questions on the timing of food intake during their shift, motivations for eating during the shift, subjective work performance, alertness and sleepiness post-shift, and driving performance post-shift. RESULTS: RSWs reported snacking during the night on a sleepover nightshift. Time available was the biggest determinant for when RSWs ate during a day and sleepover nightshift. Ratings of subjective alertness and sleepiness after eating were not different between shift types, however participants reported an increase in work performance after eating during a dayshift. Driving events were more frequently reported post-sleepover nightshift, compared to post-dayshift. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate an impact of shift type on eating and driving behaviours of RSWs and highlight the importance of further investigation of this under-researched group to identify appropriate strategies for improving health and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]