Search

Background: The public safety sector includes law enforcement officers (LEO), corrections officers (CO), firefighter service (FF), wildland firefighting (WFF), and emergency medical services (EMS), as defined in the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Across these occupations, shiftwork, long‐duration shifts, and excessive overtime are common. Our objective was to identify research gaps related to working hours, sleep, and fatigue among these workers. Methods: We used a scoping review study design that included searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Agricultural and Environmental Science Collection, ProQuest Central, Cochrane Library, Safety Lit, Homeland Security Digital Library, and Sociological Abstracts using a range of occupational search terms and terms related to working hours, sleep, and fatigue. Results: Out of 3415 articles returned from our database search, 202 met all inclusion criteria. Six common outcomes related to working hours, sleep, and fatigue emerged: sleep, fatigue, work performance, injury, psychosocial stress, and chronic disease. Nearly two‐thirds (59%, n = 120) of the studies were observational, of which 64% (n = 77) were cross sectional and 9% were (n = 11) longitudinal; 14% (n = 30) of the studies were reviews; and 19% (n = 39) were experimental or quasi‐experimental studies. Only 25 of the 202 articles described mitigation strategies or interventions. FFs, LEOs, EMS, and WFFs were the most studied, followed by COs. Conclusions: In general, more longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to enrich the knowledge base on the consequences of long working hours, poor sleep, and fatigue in the public safety sector. Few experimental studies have tested novel approaches to fatigue mitigation in diverse sectors of public safety. This gap in research limits the decisions that may be made by employers to address fatigue as a threat to public‐safety worker health and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefits of nonstandard work hours include increased production time and the number of jobs. While for some sectors, such as emergency services, around‐the‐clock work is a necessary and critical societal obligation, work outside of traditional daytime schedules has been associated with many occupational safety and health hazards and their associated costs. Thus, organizational‐ and policy‐level decisions on nonstandard work hours can be difficult and are based on several factors including economic evaluation. However, there is a lack of systematic knowledge of economic benefits and costs associated with these schedules. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the methodology and data used to examine the economic benefits and costs of nonstandard work hours and related interventions to mitigate risks. Results: Ten studies met all our inclusion criteria. Most studies used aggregation and analysis of national and other large datasets. Costs estimated include health‐related expenses, productivity losses, and projections of future loss of earnings. Cost analyses of interventions were provided for an obstructive sleep apnea screening program, implementation of an employer‐based educational program, and increased staffing to cover overtime hours. Conclusions: A paucity of studies assess nonstandard work hours using economic terms. Future studies are needed to expand economic evaluations beyond the employer level to include those at the societal level because impacts of nonstandard work go beyond the workplace and are important for policy analysis and formulation. We pose the opportunity for researchers and employers to share data and resources in the development of more analyses that fill these research gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study compares health and occupational outcomes following a work-related injury for nonstandard and day-shift workers. Methods: National Population Health Survey data were used to explore outcomes 2 years post-work injury. Retrospective-matched cohort analyses examined main effects and interactions of shift schedule and work injury with changes in health, shift schedule, and labor force status. Models were adjusted for respondent characteristics, baseline health status, and occupational strength requirements. Results: Injured nonstandard shift workers reported lower health utility index scores, compared with uninjured and injured daytime workers and uninjured nonstandard-shift workers. No significant interactions between shift and injury were found with schedule change and leaving the labor force. Conclusions: Injured nonstandard-shift workers are as likely to remain employed as other groups, but may be vulnerable in terms of diminished health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the risk of work injury associated with changes in shift schedules and identify whether work injury risks differ between men and women. Methods Longitudinal panels from the Survey of Labor and Income Dynamics were used to describe work schedule patterns over a 6-year period among a representative sample of Canadian workers (N=19 131). Cox regression was used to estimate the risk of work injury among workers who (i) switched from regular day to nonstandard shifts, (ii) switched from nonstandard to day shifts and (iii) remained in nonstandard shifts, compared with (iv) those who worked regular day shifts only. Gender differences were examined in separate stratified analyses. Adjustments were made for potential respondent and occupational confounders. Results Increased injury risk was observed among those who: switched from day to nonstandard shifts [hazard ratio (HR) 2.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.79-3.77], switched from nonstandard to days (HR 2.36, 95% CI 1.62-3.49), and worked nonstandard shifts only (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70). For women, work injury risk was higher among those who switched shifts (days to nonstandard HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.76-5.46; nonstandard to days HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.36-3.91), or worked nonstandard shifts only (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.44-2.37) compared to day schedules. However, for men the risk of injury was elevated only among those who switched shifts (days to nonstandard HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.35-3.51; nonstandard to days HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.41-3.95). The only significant difference between men and women were among nonstandard shift workers. Conclusion Our results suggest that changing shift types may increase work injury risk among men and women, and that the risk remains increased among women who work nonstandard shifts for a prolonged period of time. This highlights the need for awareness and implementation of health and safety programs when workers initially change shift schedules and on a regular basis to maintain worker health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shift work and resulting sleep impairment among nurses can increase their risk for poor health outcomes, occupational injuries, and errors due to sleep deficiencies. While sleep education and training for nurses has been recommended as part of a larger fatigue risk management system, little is known about training programs designed specifically for nurses. Investigate the literature for current sleep education or training programs specifically for shift working nurses, with intent to assess training content, delivery characteristics, and outcome measures. A scoping review conducted October 2020 through September 2021. The bibliographic databases Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Scopus, PubMed, and NIOSHTIC-2 were searched using words such as "nurse," "sleep hygiene," "shift work," and "education". Studies were included if they: 1) were original research; 2) discussed sleep education, training, or sleep hygiene interventions; 3) included a study population of nurses engaging in shift work; 4) focused on sleep as a primary study measure; 5) were written in English language; and 6) were published in 2000 or later. Search results included 17,237 articles. After duplicates were removed, 14,620 articles were screened. Nine articles were found to meet established criteria. All studies included sleep hygiene content in the training programs, with five studies adding psychological and/or behavior change motivation training to support change in nurse sleep habits. Three studies added specific training for nurses and for managers. Delivery modes included in-person training of various lengths and frequency, mobile phone application with daily engagement, an online self-guided presentation, and daily reading material coupled with audio training. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Epworth Sleepiness Scale were the outcome measures most frequently used. Although studies demonstrated improved sleep measures, most were pilot studies testing feasibility. Although there is a paucity of studies focused on sleep education and training for shift working nurses, we found the inclusion of sleep hygiene content was the only common characteristic of all nine studies. The variability in training content, delivery methods, and outcome measures suggests further research is needed on what constitutes effective sleep education and training for nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]