de Mello Marco Túlio, Guerreiro Renato de Carvalho, Santarelli Rodrigo, Brant Valdênio Martins, Barreto Amaury Tavares, Silva Flavia Rodrigues da, Silva Andressa
Department of Sports, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Department of Genetics, Centro Multidisciplinar em Sonolência e Acidente (CEMSA), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Sleep Sci. 2024 May 29;17(4):e339-e349. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1782175. eCollection 2024 Dec.
The present study used four different methods to estimate fatigue. Forty-seven volunteers (45 men and 2 women), 41.3 ± 7.5 years old, truck operators for 11.5 ± 6.0 years, were included. All participants accepted the invitation to be included in the study. Actigraphy and core temperature were evaluated. The 5-minute psychomotor vigilance test, the Karolinksa Sleepiness Scale (KSS), and the postural assessment using the Light Sonometer™ (Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil) were performed. Fatigue prediction was performed using the Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST) program. In response to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 51.06% had good sleep quality and 48.94% had poor sleep quality with an average efficiency of 81.6%. In response to the actigraphy, workers slept an average of 7.2 hours a day with 93.5% efficiency. The workers' core body temperature (CBT) cosinor analysis showed a preserved circadian curve. Core body temperature showed differences between the 6 hours worked in each shift. Similarly, the light sound level meter showed lower risk scores for fatigue in day shifts. Only the variable of the fastest 10% of the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) showed worse results, while no significant differences were observed by the KSS. The risk analysis by FAST showed a strong influence of the circadian factor. In conclusion, each method has positive and negative points, and it is up to the evaluator/manager to identify the method that best suits the purpose of the evaluation, as well as the local culture and conditions. We recommend using different methods of risk assessment and management in combination with fatigue prediction by Sonometer as well as carrying out assessments, which enable researchers to estimate performance and fatigue throughout the working day, since these may change over the duration of the working day.
本研究采用四种不同方法来评估疲劳。纳入了47名志愿者（45名男性和2名女性），年龄为41.3±7.5岁，从事卡车驾驶工作11.5±6.0年。所有参与者均接受邀请参与本研究。对活动记录仪和核心体温进行了评估。进行了5分钟的精神运动警觉性测试、卡罗林斯卡嗜睡量表（KSS）以及使用Light Sonometer™（巴西米纳斯吉拉斯州贝洛奥里藏特）进行姿势评估。使用疲劳规避调度工具（FAST）程序进行疲劳预测。根据匹兹堡睡眠质量指数（PSQI），51.06%的人睡眠质量良好，48.94%的人睡眠质量较差，平均效率为81.6%。根据活动记录仪，工人平均每天睡眠7.2小时，效率为93.5%。对工人核心体温（CBT）的余弦分析显示昼夜节律曲线保持完好。核心体温在每个班次工作的6小时之间存在差异。同样，轻型声级计显示白班的疲劳风险得分较低。只有精神运动警觉性测试（PVT）中最快的10%的变量显示出较差的结果，而KSS未观察到显著差异。FAST的风险分析显示昼夜节律因素有很大影响。总之，每种方法都有优缺点，评估者/管理者应确定最适合评估目的以及当地文化和条件的方法。我们建议结合使用不同的风险评估和管理方法以及通过声级计进行疲劳预测，并开展评估，以便研究人员能够估计整个工作日的工作表现和疲劳情况，因为这些情况可能在工作日期间发生变化。
