ImportanceExtended work hours and night shifts are essential in health care, but negatively affect physician sleep, well-being, and patient care. Alternative schedules with shorter work hours and/or reduced irregularity might mitigate these issues.ObjectiveTo compare sleep, well-being, and cognition between interns working irregular, extended shifts (call schedule), and those working a more regular schedule with restricted hours (float schedule).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this observational longitudinal cohort study, interns in a Singapore-based teaching hospital were studied for 8 weeks from January 2022 to July 2023. Data were analyzed from July 2023 to July 2024.ExposureParticipants worked either regular approximately 10-hour workdays, interspersed with 24 hour or more overnight calls 4 to 5 times a month, or a float schedule, which included regular approximately 10-hour workdays, and 5 to 7 consecutive approximately 12-hour night shifts every 2 months. Exposure was based on departmental training and operational needs.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSleep was measured with wearable sleep trackers and an electronic diary. Day-to-day well-being and cognitive assessments were collected through a smartphone application. Assessments included the Sleep Regularity Index (SRI; determines the probability of an individual being in the same state [sleep or wake] at any 2 time points 24 hours apart, with 0 indicating highly random sleep patterns and 100 denoting perfect regularity) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Inventory (PSQI; scores ranges from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating poorer sleep; a score greater than 5 suggests significant sleep difficulties).ResultsParticipants (mean [SD] age, 24.7 [1.1] years; 57 female participants [59.4%]; 41 on call schedule [42.7%]; 55 on float schedule [57.3%]) provided 4808 nights of sleep (84.2%) and 3390 days (59.3%) of well-being and cognition assessments. Participants on a float schedule had higher SRI scores (mean [SD] score, 69.4 [6.16]) and had better quality sleep (PSQI mean [SD] score, 5.4 [2.3]), than participants on call schedules (SRI mean [SD] score, 56.1 [11.3]; t91 = 6.81; mean difference, 13.3; 95% CI, 9.40 to 17.22; P < .001; PSQI mean [SD] score, 6.5 [2.3]; t79 = 2.16; 95% CI, 0.09 to 2.15; P = .03). Overnight call shifts, but not night float shifts, were associated with poorer mood (−13%; β = −6.79; 95% CI, −9.32 to −4.27; P < .001), motivation (−21%; β = −10.09; 95% CI, −12.55 to −7.63; P < .001), and sleepiness ratings (29%; β = 15.96; 95% CI, 13.01 to 18.90; P < .001) and impaired vigilance (21 ms slower; β = 20.68; 95% CI, 15.89 to 25.47; P < .001) compared with regular day shifts. Night shifts with naps were associated with better vigilance (16 ms faster; β = −15.72; 95% CI, −28.27 to −3.17; P = .01) than nights without naps.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, 24-hour call schedules were associated with poorer sleep, well-being, and cognition outcomes than float schedules. Naps during night shifts benefited vigilance in both schedules.
