Jansen N W H, van Amelsvoort L G P M, Kristensen T S, van den Brandt P A, Kant I J
Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Occup Environ Med. 2003 Jun;60 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i47-53. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i47.
(1) To describe the prevalence of fatigue among employees in different work schedules (day work, three-shift, five-shift, and irregular shift work); (2) to investigate whether different work schedules are related to increasing fatigue over time, while taking into account job title and job characteristics; and (3) to study fatigue among shift workers changing to day work.
Data from nine consecutive four-monthly self administered questionnaires from the Maastricht Cohort Study on Fatigue at work (n = 12 095) were used with 32 months of follow up. Day and shift workers were matched on job title.
The prevalence of fatigue was 18.1% in day workers, 28.6% in three-shift, 23.7% in five-shift, and 19.1% in irregular shift workers. For three-shift and five-shift workers substantial higher fatigue levels were observed compared to day workers at baseline measurement. In the course of fatigue over the 32 months of follow up there were only small and insignificant differences between employees in different work schedules. However, among employees fatigued at baseline, fatigue levels decreased faster over time among five-shift workers compared to fatigued day workers. Shift workers changing to day work reported substantially higher fatigue levels prior to change, compared to those remaining in shift work.
Substantial differences in fatigue existed between day and shift workers. However, as no considerable differences in the course of fatigue were found, these differences have probably developed within a limited time span after starting in a shift work job. Further, evidence was found that fatigue could be an important reason for quitting shift work and moving to day work. Finally, in the relation between work schedules and fatigue, perceived job characteristics might play an important role.
(1)描述不同工作班次(日班、三班倒、五班倒和不定时工作制)员工的疲劳患病率;(2)在考虑职位和工作特征的情况下,调查不同工作班次是否与疲劳随时间增加有关;(3)研究从轮班制转为日班制的工人的疲劳情况。
使用来自马斯特里赫特工作疲劳队列研究的连续9份为期4个月的自我管理问卷数据(n = 12095),随访32个月。日班和轮班工人按职位进行匹配。
日班工人的疲劳患病率为18.1%,三班倒工人为28.6%,五班倒工人为23.7%,不定时工作制工人为19.1%。在基线测量时,与日班工人相比,三班倒和五班倒工人的疲劳水平明显更高。在32个月的随访期间,不同工作班次的员工在疲劳程度上只有微小且不显著的差异。然而,在基线时感到疲劳的员工中,与日班疲劳工人相比,五班倒工人的疲劳水平随时间下降得更快。与仍从事轮班工作的人相比,转为日班工作的轮班工人在转变前报告的疲劳水平明显更高。
日班和轮班工人在疲劳方面存在显著差异。然而,由于在疲劳过程中未发现显著差异,这些差异可能是在开始从事轮班工作后的有限时间内形成的。此外,有证据表明疲劳可能是辞去轮班工作转而从事日班工作的一个重要原因。最后,在工作班次与疲劳的关系中,感知到的工作特征可能起着重要作用。