↓ Skip to main content

Association Between Rotating Night Shift Work and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease Among Women

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 2016
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
36 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
196 X users
facebook
18 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
332 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
407 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
Association Between Rotating Night Shift Work and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease Among Women
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 2016
DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.4454
Pubmed ID
Authors

Céline Vetter, Elizabeth E. Devore, Lani R. Wegrzyn, Jennifer Massa, Frank E. Speizer, Ichiro Kawachi, Bernard Rosner, Meir J. Stampfer, Eva S. Schernhammer

Abstract

Prospective studies linking shift work to coronary heart disease (CHD) have been inconsistent and limited by short follow-up. To determine whether rotating night shift work is associated with CHD risk. Prospective cohort study of 189 158 initially healthy women followed up over 24 years in the Nurses' Health Studies (NHS [1988-2012]: N = 73 623 and NHS2 [1989-2013]: N = 115 535). Lifetime history of rotating night shift work (≥3 night shifts per month in addition to day and evening shifts) at baseline (updated every 2 to 4 years in the NHS2). Incident CHD; ie, nonfatal myocardial infarction, CHD death, angiogram-confirmed angina pectoris, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, stents, and angioplasty. During follow-up, 7303 incident CHD cases occurred in the NHS (mean age at baseline, 54.5 years) and 3519 cases in the NHS2 (mean age, 34.8 years). In multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, increasing years of baseline rotating night shift work were associated with a significantly higher CHD risk in both cohorts. In the NHS, the age-standardized incidence rate (IR) for less than 5 years of rotating night shift work per 100 000 person-years was 435.1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08); the IR for 5 to 9 years of rotating night shift work was 525.7 (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22); and the IR for 10 years or more of rotating night shift work was 596.9 (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26; P<.001 for trend) vs an IR of 425.5 in women who never worked rotating night shifts. In the NHS2, the IR for less than 5 years was 130.6 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13); the IR for 5 to 9 years was 151.6 (HR,1.12; 95% CI, 0.99-1.26); and the IR for 10 years or more was 178.0 (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .01 for trend) vs an IR of 122.6 in women who never worked rotating night shifts. In the NHS, the association between duration of rotating night shift work and CHD was stronger in the first half of follow-up (IR for <5 years, 382.4; HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.21]; IR for 5-9 years, 483.1; HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.03-1.39]; and IR for ≥10 years, 494.4; HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.13-1.42]; P<.001 for trend) than in the second half (IR for <5 years, 424.8; HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.05]; IR for 5-9 years, 520.7; HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.96-1.21]; IR for ≥10 years, 556.2; HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]; P = .004 for trend; P = .02 for interaction), suggestive of waning risk after cessation of shift work. Longer time since quitting shift work was associated with decreased CHD risk among ever shift workers in the NHS2 (P<.001 for trend). Among women who worked as registered nurses, longer duration of rotating night shift work was associated with a statistically significant but small absolute increase in CHD risk. Further research is needed to explore whether the association is related to specific work hours and individual characteristics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 196 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 407 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 403 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 14%
Student > Bachelor 56 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 12%
Researcher 30 7%
Other 20 5%
Other 82 20%
Unknown 116 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 6%
Unspecified 12 3%
Other 73 18%
Unknown 134 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 448. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#63,094
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#1,202
of 36,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,233
of 316,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#30
of 378 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 36,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 316,075 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 378 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.