"A hard day's night?" The effects of Compressed Working Week interventions on the health and work-life balance of shift workers: a systematic review

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Design Systematic review. Following QUORUM guidelines, we searched for published or unpublished experimental and quasi-experimental studies.Data sources: 27 electronic databases, websites, bibliographies, and expert contacts.Results 40 observational studies were found. The majority of studies only measured selfreported outcomes and the methodological quality of the included studies was not very high.Interventions did not always improve the health of shift workers, but in the five prospective studies with a control group, there were no detrimental effects on self-reported health.However, work-life balance was generally improved. No studies reported differential impacts by socio-economic group, however most of the studies were conducted on homogeneous populations. Conclusion This review suggests that the Compressed Working Week can improve work-lifebalance, and that it may do so with a low risk of adverse health or organisational effects.However, better designed studies which measure objective health outcomes are needed.. Abstract: 175 words3

Working for health? Evidence from systematic reviews on the effects on health and health inequalities of organisational changes to the psychosocial work environment

“…Seven reviews addressing the health effects of changes to the psychosocial work environment were located: three examined increased employee control (Aust & Ducki, 2004;Bambra et al, 2007;Egan et al, 2007a), and four evaluated the effects of changes to the organisation of work (shift work, privatisation, health and safety legislation) (Bambra et al, 2008a;Bambra et al, 2008b;Egan et al, 2007b;Rivara & Thompson, 2000). Five of the reviews specifically examined effects on health inequalities (Bambra et al, 2007;Bambra et al, 2008a;Bambra et al, 2008b;Egan et al, 2007a;Egan et al, 2007b).…”

“…Five of the reviews specifically examined effects on health inequalities (Bambra et al, 2007;Bambra et al, 2008a;Bambra et al, 2008b;Egan et al, 2007a;Egan et al, 2007b). Five of the reviews met all seven of the critical appraisal criteria (Bambra et al, 2007;Bambra et al, 2008a;Bambra et al, 2008b;Egan et al, 2007a;Egan et al, 2007b).…”

“…Five reviews were located which focused on the health and wellbeing effects of changes to the organisation of work (Tables 2 and 3): two examined changes to shift work (Bambra et al, 2008a;Bambra et al, 2008b), one examined privatisation (Egan et al, 2007b), whilst another evaluated the introduction of health and safety legislation in the US construction industry (Rivara & Thompson, 2000). Four of these reviews met all seven of the appraisal criteria although the review by Rivara and Thompson met only five (it was unclear if the primary studies had been quality appraised or if more than one reviewer had been involved at each stage of the review).…”

“…One focused on the health and psychosocial effects of changing to a compressed working week, (Bambra et al, 2008a) whilst the other examined various other changes to shift work schedules (Bambra et al, 2008b).…”

“…In the review of compressed working weeks (usually changing from five days of 8hr shifts to four days of 12hr shifts) (Bambra et al, 2008a), 40 studies were synthesised. The review found that whilst positive health effects were not always evident, there was seldom a detrimental effect.…”