4.6 Article

Shift Work Disorder in a Random Population Sample - Prevalence and Comorbidities

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055306

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute for Health and Social Science Research at Central Queensland University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies have investigated the presence of shift work disorder (SWD) in the general community. We addressed many of the limitations in this literature and present new findings. SWD has been treated as an 'all or none' construct but we propose the need to consider the 'severity' of the disorder. Using random digit dialling, we randomly recruited 1163 participants. Participants completed an extensive battery of scales and questions concerning work, health and individual differences. Three questions based on the criteria from the International Classification for Sleep Disorders were used to categorise participants with SWD (n = 176). In addition, we asked participants whether SWD interfered with aspects of their life and high ratings were used to define severe shift work disorder (SSWD). The prevalence of SWD was 32.1% among night workers and 10.1% in day workers (p<.001). SSWD was present in 9.1% of night workers and 1.3% of day workers (p<.001). Adjusted logistic regression analyses found significant associations between SWD and night work (OR = 3.35, CI 2.19-5.12), weekly work hours (OR = 1.02, CI 1.00-1.04), short sleep (<= 6 h; OR = 2.93, CI 1.94-4.41), languidity (OR = 1.11, CI 1.06-1.16) and resilience (OR = 0.56, CI 0.43-0.81). Night work, short sleep, languidity, and hypertension were significantly associated with SSWD. Overall, participants with SSWD slept 0.80 h less than other participants (p<.001). Night work, short sleep and languidity were associated with both SWD and SSWD. Day workers with SWD symptoms reported significantly shorter sleep duration, higher levels of languidity and worked longer working hours compared to day workers without SWD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据