4.5 Article

Night shift work at specific age ranges and chronic disease risk factors

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 100-107

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2014-102292

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CDC-NIOSH [UM1CA176726, 5R01OH009803]
  2. NIH [R25 CA098566]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We examined the association of night shift work history and age when night shift work was performed with cancer and cardiovascular disease risk factors among 54 724 women in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) II. Methods We calculated age-adjusted and socioeconomic status-adjusted means and percentages for cancer and cardiovascular risk factors in 2009 across categories of night shift work history. We used multivariable-adjusted logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for key risk factors among 54 724 participants (72% ever shift workers). We further examined these associations by age (20-25, 26-35, 36-45 and 46+ years) at which shift work was performed. Results Ever night shift workers had increased odds of obesity (body mass index >= 30 kg/m(2); OR=1.37, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.43); higher caffeine intake (>= 131 mg/day; OR=1.16, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.22) and total calorie intake (>= 1715 kcal/day; OR=1.09, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.13); current smoking (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.42); and shorter sleep durations (<= 7 h of sleep/day; OR=1.19, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.24) compared to never night shift workers. These estimates varied depending on age at which night work was performed, with a suggestion that night shift work before age 25 was associated with fewer risk factors compared to night shift work at older ages. Conclusions Our results indicate that night shift work may contribute to an adverse chronic disease risk profile, and that risk factors may vary depending on the age at which night shift work was performed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available