Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most prevalent gastrointestinal disorders worldwide. There is still debate about the pathophysiology of IBS. Symptoms of IBS include abdominal pain and alternating bowel movements, but the severity differs among the patients, which affects their quality of life. Our main aim in this study is to find the impact of work hours on the quality of life of adult employees with irritable bowel syndrome in Saudi Arabia. MethodsAn analytical cross-sectional study was conducted using an online self-administered survey including employees over 18 years old in Saudi Arabia. The survey was designed in three different parts. The first part is demographics and personal information, The second concentrates on IBS using the Rome-IV criteria while the third part reviewed the participant's quality of life by utilizing the quality-of-life scale (QOLS). ResultsThe total number of participants was 1800; most of the population were females (954; 53%) and there were 846 (47%) males. The study showed that 27.11% were diagnosed with IBS. Furthermore, the result revealed significant differences between working hours, with employees who work more than nine hours (33.7%) being more affected by IBS than others. Nevertheless, significant independent risk factors for IBS were QOLS (OR = 0.988; 95% CI (0.981, 0.995), p = .001), being an employee in free business (OR = 1.755; 95% CI (1.134, 2.714) p = .012), working between 6 and 9 hours (OR = 0.623; 95% CI (0.404, 0.961), p = .032). ConclusionThe impact of work hours on adult employees with IBS in Saudi Arabia has been noticed; the results showed that the prevalence of IBS among females is higher; employees working more than nine hours with a medium to sedentary work nature are more vulnerable to developing IBS. We suggest that IBS patients should address their needs to their employers.

The emergency room is the most likely location where victims of violent crime would be encountered by the healthcare system, as the emergency staff is the first to evaluate the victim or culprit, exposing them to a range of forensic evidence. Forensic evidence can help exclude, identify, and prosecute a suspect and is classified as informational or physical evidence. Emergency staff must be proficient and knowledgeable in gathering, preserving, and documenting forensic evidence in their practice. To our knowledge, this is the first study that assesses the emergency staff's level of practice in managing forensic evidence. The aims of this study are to assess the level of practice of emergency staff in managing forensic evidence and observe an association between emergency experience and the level of practice in managing forensic evidence, study a connection between forensic education/training and the level of practice in the management of forensic evidence. This observational cross-sectional analytical study in Saudi Arabia was conducted from January 2022 to December 2022. Participants completed a self-administered online survey. Measuring the level of practice was implemented through a researcher-designed questionnaire based on a paper that provided guidelines for forensic evidence collection in the emergency department. Most emergency healthcare workers had a good level of practice in managing forensic evidence (64.7%). Those with excellent practice scored the lowest in documentation, whereas participants in the poor practice category scored the lowest in the trace evidence and clothes domains. Emergency workers who encountered less number of forensic cases per month, i.e., less than two or three to five cases, were found to be more likely to have poor management of forensic evidence. Emergency personnel with no prior education or training are more likely to engage in poor practice in forensic evidence collection. Furthermore, those who had acquired forensic education/training had higher percentages of excellent forensic practice (56.52%) compared to poor practice (7.14%). Those who claimed that their institution had issued guidelines were more likely to have excellent practice (75.36%), while those who did not receive guidelines were more likely to have poor forensic evidence management (85.71%). More research is required involving local hospitals and utilizing consistently validated methods in evaluating forensic evidence collection. Key points A national assessment of emergency staff level of practice in the management of forensic evidence was performed. Most emergency staff had a good level of practice in the management of forensic evidence. More training and education are needed for emergency staff in the field of forensics. National evidence-based guidelines for managing forensic evidence in the emergency setting should be established.