4.6 Article

Night shift work, long working hours and dementia: a longitudinal study of the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027027

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Working Environment Research Fund [10-2015-03 20150017498]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Shift work and long working hours are potential risk factors for dementia, but previous studies on shift work, long working hours and dementia are sparse and their findings are conflicting. Therefore, we investigated the effect of night shift work and long working hours on dementia. Design A longitudinal study. Setting Denmark. Participants 3435 occupationally active men and women from the general working population. Methods Work schedule covered day work (reference) and shift schedules without/with night work. Working hours covered < 27, 28-36, 37 (reference), 38-44, and >= 45 hours/week. As the primary outcome, we used register-based information about dementia, and estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% CI. Estimates were adjusted for gender, age, psychosocial work factors and cardiovascular risk factors. Results We identified 85 dementia cases during a mean of 9.8 years of follow-up. We found a positive, but statistically insignificant association between night shift work and dementia (IRR=2.01; 95% CI: 0.87-4.65). Post hoc analyses indicated that this was only due to a higher risk in permanent night workers (IRR=3.25; 95% CI: 1.35-7.83). The dementia risk was also significantly higher among participants working 38-44 hours/week (IRR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.11-3.90) compared with those working 37 hours/week. We found no indications of a higher risk of dementia in participants working < 37 hours/week or >= 45 hours/week. Conclusion We did not find arguments that night shift work or long working hours increased dementia risk in general. However, we found a higher risk of dementia in specific subgroups, that is, permanent night workers and employees with moderately longer weekly working hours than the standard.

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