4.4 Article

Guiding principles for determining work shift duration and addressing the effects of work shift duration on performance, safety, and health: guidance from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 2283-2306

出版社

AMER ACAD SLEEP MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9512

关键词

working time arrangements; shift scheduling; mental fatigue; sleepiness; alertness; productivity; circadian rhythms; sleep homeostasis; occupational medicine; policy making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Historically, risks associated with fatigue during work shifts have been managed through fixed time arrangements, but these traditional methods are not sufficient to mitigate the risks to performance, safety, and health caused by fatigue. Science-based approaches are necessary to determine shift duration and mitigate associated risks effectively while balancing operational demands.
Risks associated with fatigue that accumulates during work shifts have historically been managed through working time arrangements that specify fixed maximum durations of work shifts and minimum durations of time off. By themselves, such arrangements are not sufficient to curb risks to performance, safety, and health caused by misalignment between work schedules and the biological regulation of waking alertness and sleep. Science-based approaches for determining shift duration and mitigating associated risks, while addressing operational needs, require: (1)a recognition of the factors contributing to fatigue and fatigue-related risks; (2) an understanding of evidence-based countermeasures that may reduce fatigue and/or fatigue-related risks; and (3) an informed approach to selecting workplace-specific strategies for managing work hours. We propose a series of guiding principles to assist stakeholders with designing a shift duration decision-making process that effectively balances the need to meet operational demands with the need to manage fatigue-related risks.

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

4.4
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