↓ Skip to main content

Person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions for sleepiness at work and sleep disturbances caused by shift work

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions for sleepiness at work and sleep disturbances caused by shift work
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010641.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy E Slanger, J. Valérie Gross, Andreas Pinger, Peter Morfeld, Miriam Bellinger, Anna-Lena Duhme, Rosalinde Amancay Reichardt Ortega, Giovanni Costa, Tim R Driscoll, Russell G Foster, Lin Fritschi, Mikael Sallinen, Juha Liira, Thomas C Erren

Abstract

Shift work is often associated with sleepiness and sleep disorders. Person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions may positively influence the impact of shift work on sleep, thereby improving workers' well-being, safety, and health. To assess the effects of person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions for reducing sleepiness at work and improving the length and quality of sleep between shifts for shift workers. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Knowledge, ProQuest, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, and OSH-UPDATE from inception to August 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings and searched the World Health Organization (WHO) Trial register. We contacted experts to obtain unpublished data. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cross-over designs) that investigated the effect of any person-directed, non-pharmacological intervention on sleepiness on-shift or sleep length and sleep quality off-shift in shift workers who also work nights. At least two authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors to obtain missing information. We conducted meta-analyses when pooling of studies was possible. We included 17 relevant trials (with 556 review-relevant participants) which we categorised into three types of interventions: (1) various exposures to bright light (n = 10); (2) various opportunities for napping (n = 4); and (3) other interventions, such as physical exercise or sleep education (n = 3). In most instances, the studies were too heterogeneous to pool. Most of the comparisons yielded low to very low quality evidence. Only one comparison provided moderate quality evidence. Overall, the included studies' results were inconclusive. We present the results regarding sleepiness below. Bright light Combining two comparable studies (with 184 participants altogether) that investigated the effect of bright light during the night on sleepiness during a shift, revealed a mean reduction 0.83 score points of sleepiness (measured via the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to -0.36, very low quality evidence). Another trial did not find a significant difference in overall sleepiness on another sleepiness scale (16 participants, low quality evidence).Bright light during the night plus sunglasses at dawn did not significantly influence sleepiness compared to normal light (1 study, 17 participants, assessment via reaction time, very low quality evidence).Bright light during the day shift did not significantly reduce sleepiness during the day compared to normal light (1 trial, 61 participants, subjective assessment, low quality evidence) or compared to normal light plus placebo capsule (1 trial, 12 participants, assessment via reaction time, very low quality evidence). Napping during the night shiftA meta-analysis on a single nap opportunity and the effect on the mean reaction time as a surrogate for sleepiness, resulted in a 11.87 ms reduction (95% CI 31.94 to -8.2, very low quality evidence). Two other studies also reported statistically non-significant decreases in reaction time (1 study seven participants; 1 study 49 participants, very low quality evidence).A two-nap opportunity resulted in a statistically non-significant increase of sleepiness (subjective assessment) in one study (mean difference (MD) 2.32, 95% CI -24.74 to 29.38, 1 study, 15 participants, low quality evidence). Other interventionsPhysical exercise and sleep education interventions showed promise, but sufficient data to draw conclusions are lacking. Given the methodological diversity of the included studies, in terms of interventions, settings, and assessment tools, their limited reporting and the very low to low quality of the evidence they present, it is not possible to determine whether shift workers' sleepiness can be reduced or if their sleep length or quality can be improved with these interventions.We need better and adequately powered RCTs of the effect of bright light, and naps, either on their own or together and other non-pharmacological interventions that also consider shift workers' chronobiology on the investigated sleep parameters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 207 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 22%
Student > Bachelor 33 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 34 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 17%
Psychology 27 13%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 46 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#868,283
of 15,248,235 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,497
of 11,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,490
of 265,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,248,235 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 265,615 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.