Working time arrangements that require shift work or other non-standard working hours have significant potential to encroach on time that is highly valued for family, social and leisure activity. This can often result in workers experiencing poorer work-family or work-life balance. Based on an extensive literature search and expert knowledge, primary risk factors were identified including shift work; long, irregular and unpredictable working hours; and work on evenings and weekends (in combination and independent of shift work). On the other hand, flexibility, in the form of adequate worker control over work schedules, may be a protective factor. In addition, workers experiencing excessive work-life conflict are likely to reduce their working hours, reflecting a reciprocal relationship between working hours and work-life balance. Workers' families are also affected by shift work and non-standard working hours. Parents' shift work is associated with poorer emotional and developmental outcomes for their children, and to a greater likelihood of risky behavior in adolescence. Additionally, the risk of separation or divorce is increased, especially for parents working night shifts. Due to relationships such as those above, the consequences of shiftwork and non-standard working hours on family and social life are largely dependent on a complex interaction between specific work schedules, other aspects of work organization, and family and individual worker characteristics. This article provides an overview of current evidence regarding the relationships between working time arrangements and various social and family variables, and concludes with shift scheduling and intervention recommendations to improve work-life balance and social well-being.

Summary Rate of recovery of daytime performance and sleepiness following moderate and severe sleep deprivation (SD) was examined when recovery opportunity was either augmented or restricted. Thirty healthy non‐smokers, aged 18–33 years, participated in one of three conditions: moderate SD with augmented (9‐h) recovery opportunities, moderate SD with restricted (6‐h) recovery opportunities, or severe SD with augmented recovery opportunities. Each participant attended the laboratory for 8–9 consecutive nights: an adaptation and baseline night (23:00–08:00 hours), one or two night(s) of wakefulness, and five consecutive recovery sleep opportunities (23:00–08:00 hours or 02:00–08:00 hours). On each experimental day, psychomotor vigilance performance (PVT) and subjective sleepiness (SSS) were assessed at two‐hourly intervals, and MSLTs were performed at 1000h. PSG data was collected for each sleep period. For all groups, PVT performance significantly deteriorated during the period of wakefulness, and sleepiness significantly increased. Significant differences were observed between the groups during the recovery phase. Following moderate SD, response speed, lapses and SSS returned to baseline after one 9‐h sleep opportunity, while sleep latencies required two 9‐h opportunities. When the recovery opportunity was restricted to six hours, neither PVT performance nor sleepiness recovered, but stabilised at below‐baseline levels. Following severe SD, sleepiness recovered after one (SSS) or two (physiological) 9‐h sleep opportunities, however PVT performance remained significantly below baseline for the entire recovery period. These results suggest that the mechanisms underlying the recovery process may be more complicated than previously thought, and that we may have underestimated the impact of sleep loss and/or the restorative value of subsequent sleep.

Objectives To investigate the acute benefits of breaking up prolonged sitting with light-intensity physical activity on (i) glucose metabolism under conditions of sleep restriction, and (ii) cognitive deficits associated with sleep restriction. Methods This counterbalanced, crossover trial consisted of two five-day (5 night) experimental conditions separated by a two-week washout period. On the first night, participants were given a 9-h sleep opportunity to allow the collection of steady-state baseline measures the following day. This was followed by three consecutive nights of sleep restriction (5-h sleep opportunity). In the sitting condition (SIT), participants remained seated between 1000 and 1800 h. In the physical activity condition (ACT), participants completed 3-min bouts of light-intensity walking every 30 min on a motorised treadmill between 1000 and 1800 h. At all other times, in both conditions, participants remained seated, except when walking to the dining room or to use the bathroom (max distance = 32 m). Six physically inactive, healthy males were randomised to one of two trial orders, 1) SIT then ACT, or 2) ACT then SIT. Continuous measures of interstitial glucose were measured at 5-min intervals. A cognitive and subjective test battery was administered every two hours during wake periods. Analyses were conducted using a series of linear mixed-effect ANOVAs. Results No differences in interstitial glucose concentration or cognitive performance were observed between the SIT condition and the ACT condition. Participants reported higher levels of sleepiness, and felt less alert in the SIT condition compared with the ACT condition. Conclusions There were no observable benefits of breaking up prolonged sitting on glucose metabolism under conditions of sleep restriction. These findings have implications for behaviour change interventions. Future studies will need to include larger, less homogenous study populations and appropriate control conditions (i.e., 8–9 h sleep opportunities).

No abstract

No abstract