↓ Skip to main content

Aligning Work and Circadian Time in Shift Workers Improves Sleep and Reduces Circadian Disruption

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
226 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aligning Work and Circadian Time in Shift Workers Improves Sleep and Reduces Circadian Disruption
Published in
Current Biology, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Céline Vetter, Dorothee Fischer, Joana L. Matera, Till Roenneberg

Abstract

Sleep loss and circadian disruption-a state of misalignment between physiological functions and imposed sleep/wake behavior-supposedly play central roles in the etiology of shift work-related pathologies [1-4]. Circadian entrainment is, however, highly individual [5], resulting in different chronotypes [6, 7]. Chronotype in turn modulates the effects of working times: compared to late chronotypes, earlier ones sleep worse and shorter and show higher levels of circadian misalignment during night shifts, while late types experience more sleep and circadian disruption than early types when working morning shifts [8]. To promote sleep and reduce the mismatch between circadian and working time, we implemented a chronotype-adjusted (CTA) shift schedule in a factory. We abolished the most strenuous shifts for extreme chronotypes (i.e., mornings for late chronotypes, nights for early ones) and examined whether sleep duration and quality, social jetlag [9, 10], wellbeing, subjective stress perception, and satisfaction with leisure time improved in this schedule. Intermediate chronotypes (quartiles 2 and 3) served as a control group, still working morning (6:00-14:00), evening (14:00-22:00), and night (22:00-6:00) shifts, with two strenuous shifts (out of twelve per month) replaced by evening ones. We observed a significant increase of self-reported sleep duration and quality, along with increased wellbeing ratings on workdays among extreme chronotypes. The CTA schedule reduced overall social jetlag by 1 hr, did not alter stress levels, and increased satisfaction with leisure time (early types only). Chronotype-based schedules thus can reduce circadian disruption and improve sleep; potential long-term effects on health and economic indicators need to be elucidated in future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 332 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 17%
Student > Bachelor 50 15%
Student > Master 43 13%
Researcher 41 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 54 16%
Unknown 74 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 6%
Other 82 24%
Unknown 89 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 152. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2021.
All research outputs
#275,573
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#1,224
of 14,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,041
of 278,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#28
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.