OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to (i) investigate the consequences of self-rostering for working hours, recovery, and health, and (ii) elucidate the mechanisms through which recovery and health are affected. METHODS: Twenty eight workplaces were allocated to either an intervention or reference group. Intervention A encompassed the possibility to specify preferences for starting time and length of shift down to 15 minutes intervals. Interventions B and C included the opportunity to choose between a number of predefined duties. Questionnaires (N=840) on recovery and health and objective workplace reports of working hours (N=718) were obtained at baseline and 12 months later. The interaction term between intervention and time was tested in mixed models and multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) of having short [OR 4.8, 95 % confidence interval (95% CI) 1.9-12.3] and long (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.9-8.0) shifts increased in intervention A. Somatic symptoms (β= -0.10, 95% CI -0.19- -0.02) and mental distress (β= -0.13, 95% CI -0.23- -0.03) decreased, and sleep (β= 1.7, 95% CI 0.04-0.30) improved in intervention B, and need for recovery was reduced in interventions A (β= -0.17, 95% CI -0.29- -0.04) and B (β= -0.17, 95% CI -0.27- -0.07). There were no effects on recovery and health in intervention C, and overall, there were no detrimental effects on recovery or health. The benefits of the intervention were not related to changes in working hours and did not differ by gender, age, family type, degree of employment, or working hour arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of self-rostering, employees changed shift length and timing but did not compromise most recommendations for acceptable shift work schedules. Positive consequences of self-rostering for recovery and health were observed, particularly in intervention B where worktime control increased but less extensively than intervention A. The effect could not be statistically explained by changes in actual working hours.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to (i) investigate the consequences of self-rostering for working hours, recovery, and health, and (ii) elucidate the mechanisms through which recovery and health are affected. METHODS: Twenty eight workplaces were allocated to either an intervention or reference group. Intervention A encompassed the possibility to specify preferences for starting time and length of shift down to 15 minutes intervals. Interventions B and C included the opportunity to choose between a number of predefined duties. Questionnaires (N=840) on recovery and health and objective workplace reports of working hours (N=718) were obtained at baseline and 12 months later. The interaction term between intervention and time was tested in mixed models and multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) of having short [OR 4.8, 95 % confidence interval (95% CI) 1.9-12.3] and long (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.9-8.0) shifts increased in intervention A. Somatic symptoms (β= -0.10, 95% CI -0.19- -0.02) and mental distress (β= -0.13, 95% CI -0.23- -0.03) decreased, and sleep (β= 1.7, 95% CI 0.04-0.30) improved in intervention B, and need for recovery was reduced in interventions A (β= -0.17, 95% CI -0.29- -0.04) and B (β= -0.17, 95% CI -0.27- -0.07). There were no effects on recovery and health in intervention C, and overall, there were no detrimental effects on recovery or health. The benefits of the intervention were not related to changes in working hours and did not differ by gender, age, family type, degree of employment, or working hour arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of self-rostering, employees changed shift length and timing but did not compromise most recommendations for acceptable shift work schedules. Positive consequences of self-rostering for recovery and health were observed, particularly in intervention B where worktime control increased but less extensively than intervention A. The effect could not be statistically explained by changes in actual working hours.
Authors: Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen; Marie Birk Jørgensen; Anne Helene Garde; Thomas Clausen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Karen Albertsen; Anne Helene Garde; Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen; Ase Marie Hansen; Henrik Lund; Helge Hvid Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-02-24 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Nidhi Gupta; Christian Dyrlund Wåhlin-Jacobsen; Louise Nøhr Henriksen; Johan Simonsen Abildgaard; Karina Nielsen; Andreas Holtermann Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anne Helene Garde; Anette Harris; Øystein Vedaa; Bjørn Bjorvatn; Johnni Hansen; Åse Marie Hansen; Henrik A Kolstad; Aki Koskinen; Ståle Pallesen; Annina Ropponen; Mikko I Härmä Journal: BMC Nurs Date: 2019-03-28
Authors: Matthew L Stevens; Patrick Crowley; Anne H Garde; Ole S Mortensen; Clas-Håkan Nygård; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mark Lidegaard; Karen Søgaard; Peter Krustrup; Andreas Holtermann; Mette Korshøj Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Anna Arlinghaus; Philip Bohle; Irena Iskra-Golec; Nicole Jansen; Sarah Jay; Lucia Rotenberg Journal: Ind Health Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.179