4.3 Article

Psychosocial Stress in Nurses With Shift Work Schedule Is Associated With Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 516-522

Publisher

KOREAN SOC NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY & MOTILITY
DOI: 10.5056/jnm14034

Keywords

Dyspepsia; Irritable bowel syndrome; Marriage; Sleep

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the role of psychosocial problems and their associations with rotating shift work in the development of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Methods In this cross-sectional observation study, survey was administered to nurses and nurse assistants in a referral hospital. In addition to demographic questions, subjects were asked to complete the Rome III Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Rome III Psychosocial Alarm Questionnaire. Results Responses from 301 subjects were assessed. The overall prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia (FD) were 15.0% and 19.6%, respectively. Psychosocial alarms were prevalent in the nursing personnel (74.8% with alarm presence and 23.3% with serious condition) and were more frequent among rotating shift workers (84.7% vs. 74.5% for alarm presence and 28.1% vs. 13.3% for serious condition). The prevalence of both IBS and FD significantly increased with psychosocial risk. An independent risk factor for IBS was serious psychosocial alarm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.30-88.99; P = 0.028). Serious psythosocial alarm was an independent risk factor for FD (aOR, 7.84; 95% CI, 1.98-31.02; P = 0.003). Marriage (aOR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-0.93; P = 0.037) was associated with the decreased risk of FD. Conclusions The high prevalence of psychosocial stress among nurses who work rotating shifts is associated with the development of functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available