Nordin M, Knutsson A
Department of Public Health and Clinical Med Occup Med Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
J Hum Ergol (Tokyo). 2001 Dec;30(1-2):143-7.
The aims were to evaluate sleepiness and recovery during a schedule change, and during an 84-hours workweek. The control group (16 men) stayed on a six-week schedule, whereas the intervention group (12 men) transferred to a seven-week schedule. Sleepiness was estimated, using the KSS-scale, four times during the first and the third night in the fifth or sixth shift week. Recovery was assessed through four estimations on days one, three and five during the week off. Statistical testing was carried out using repeated measurement ANOVA. Sleepiness at night was affected by night (F = 4.90, p < 0.05) and hour (F = 33.64, p < 0.001) in both groups. The intervention group was sleepier during the first recovery day compared to the control group (F = 4.02, p < 0.05). Analysis of the 84-hour-week showed an effect of night (F = 8.98, p < 0.05) and hour (F = 71.60, p < 0.001) on night work, and day (F = 22.49, p < 0.01) and hour (F = 6.66, p < 0.05) on recovery. Sleepiness was more pronounced on the first recovery day (F = 23.08, p < 0.01). The seven-week schedule showed no effect that differed from that of the control group on sleepiness during the night shift. After the 84-hour workweek the workers recovered in about three days. The new schedules may affect the first recovery day negatively.
本研究旨在评估在日程安排改变期间以及84小时工作周期间的困倦程度和恢复情况。对照组（16名男性）维持六周的日程安排，而干预组（12名男性）则转换为七周的日程安排。在第五或第六轮班周的第一个和第三个晚上，使用KSS量表对困倦程度进行了四次评估。在休假的第一天、第三天和第五天通过四次评估来评估恢复情况。使用重复测量方差分析进行统计检验。两组夜间的困倦程度均受到夜晚（F = 4.90，p < 0.05）和小时（F = 33.64，p < 0.001）的影响。与对照组相比，干预组在第一个恢复日更困倦（F = 4.02，p < 0.05）。对84小时工作周的分析表明，夜晚（F = 8.98，p < 0.05）和小时（F = 71.60，p < 0.001）对夜班工作有影响，而白天（F = 22.49，p < 0.01）和小时（F = 6.66，p < 0.05）对恢复有影响。在第一个恢复日困倦更为明显（F = 23.08，p < 0.01）。七周的日程安排在夜班期间对困倦程度的影响与对照组相比无差异。在84小时工作周之后，工人们大约需要三天来恢复。新的日程安排可能会对第一个恢复日产生负面影响。
