| Literature DB >> 24909112 |
Shu-Yu Tai1, Pei-Chen Lin, Yao-Mei Chen, Hsin-Chia Hung, Chih-Hong Pan, Shung-Mei Pan, Chung-Yin Lee, Chia-Tsuan Huang, Ming-Tsang Wu.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the interactive effect of marital status and shift work on family function. A population-based sample of 1,438 nurses between the ages of 20-45 yr was recruited from Taiwan during the period from July 2005 to April 2006 using a mailed questionnaire. The self-administered questionnaire contained information about demographic data, work status, shift work schedule, and the Family APGAR (Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) Scale, to evaluate family function. Compared to day shift nurses, non-night and rotation shift nurses had 1.53- and 1.38-fold (95% CI=1.09-2.14 and 1.01-1.88) risk to have poor family function after adjusting for other covariates. Married nurses, by contrast, had a 0.44-fold (95% CI=0.29-0.66) risk to have poor family function compared to single nurses. In addition, married nurses who worked non-night or rotation shifts had a significantly higher percent of poor family function than those married nurses working day shifts; however, similar results were not replicated in single nurses. We concluded that shift work and marital status could influence family function.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24909112 PMCID: PMC4243015 DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2014-0009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ind Health ISSN: 0019-8366 Impact factor: 2.179
Demographic characteristics by different work schedule among 1,438 study nurses
| Work schedule | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day shift | Non-night shift | Rotation shift | ||
| N=312 | N=322 | N=804 | ||
| N (%) | ||||
| Age (yr) | <0.0001 | |||
| 20–29 | 68 (21.8) | 190 (59.0) | 542 (67.4) | |
| 30–39 | 180 (57.7) | 98 (30.4) | 215 (26.7) | |
| ≥40 | 54 (17.3) | 28 (8.7) | 22 (2.8) | |
| Missing | 10 (3.2) | 6 (1.9) | 25 (3.1) | |
| Education levels | <0.0001 | |||
| < College | 138 (44.2) | 267 (82.9) | 514 (63.9) | |
| ≥ College | 174 (55.5) | 53 (16.5) | 288 (35.8) | |
| Missing | 1 (0.3) | 2 (0.6) | 2 (0.3) | |
| Current marital status | <0.0001 | |||
| Single | 99 (31.7) | 168 (52.2) | 542 (67.4) | |
| Married | 213 (68.3) | 154 (47.8) | 262 (32.6) | |
| Having children | <0.0001 | |||
| No | 122 (39.1) | 175 (54.3) | 564 (70.2) | |
| Yes | 188 (60.3) | 138 (42.9) | 223 (27.7) | |
| Missing | 2 (0.6) | 9 (2.8) | 17 (2.1) | |
| Years of employment | <0.0001 | |||
| <2 | 10 (3.2) | 31 (9.6) | 176 (21.9) | |
| 2–5 | 16 (5.1) | 80 (24.8) | 149 (18.5) | |
| 5–10 | 83 (26.6) | 101 (31.4) | 285 (35.5) | |
| 10–5 | 100 (32.1) | 63 (19.6) | 132 (16.4) | |
| ≥15 | 103 (33.0) | 47 (14.6) | 61 (7.6) | |
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.1) | |
| Medical center | <0.0001 | |||
| Yes | 71 (22.8) | 55 (17.1) | 352 (43.8) | |
| No | 241 (77.2) | 266 (82.9) | 452 (56.2) | |
| Continuous training | 0.0363 | |||
| No | 243 (78.4) | 268 (85.6) | 642 (79.9) | |
| Yes | 67 (21.6) | 45 (14.4) | 162 (20.1) | |
| Family function* | 0.0022 | |||
| Good | 181 (58.0) | 145 (45.0) | 387 (48.1) | |
| Poor | 131 (42.0) | 177 (55.0) | 417 (51.9) | |
*Family function was evaluated by APGAR score (Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve) (good >6; poor ≤6).
Relationship of family function to different work schedule and current marital status
| Family function* | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | Poor | |||||||
| N (%) | N (%) | OR | 95% CI | AOR+ | 95% CI | |||
| Work schedule | ||||||||
| Day | 181 (58.0) | 131 (42.0) | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Non-night | 145 (45.0) | 177 (55.0) | 1.69 | 1.23–2.31 | 0.0011 | 1.53 | 1.09–2.14 | 0.014 |
| Rotation | 387 (48.1) | 417 (51.9) | 1.49 | 1.14–1.94 | 0.0031 | 1.38 | 1.01–1.88 | 0.0415 |
| Current marital status | ||||||||
| Single | 356 (44.0) | 453 (56.0) | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Married | 357 (56.8) | 272 (43.2) | 0.6 | 0.49–0.74 | <0.0001 | 0.44 | 0.29–0.66 | <0.0001 |
*Family function was evaluated by APGAR score (good >6; poor ≤6). +Adjusting for age, education levels, years of employment, continuous training, medical center, and having children.
Relationship of family function to different work schedule categorized by current marital status
| Work schedule | Family function* | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | Poor | |||||
| N (%) | N (%) | AOR+ | 95% CI | |||
| Single (N=809) | 0.2175 | |||||
| Day | 44 (44.4) | 55 (55.6) | 1 | |||
| Non-night | 64 (38.1) | 104 (61.9) | 1.24 | 0.71–2.15 | 0.4467 | |
| Rotation | 248 (45.8) | 294 (54.2) | 1.01 | 0.62–1.66 | 0.9645 | |
| Married (N=629) | 0.024 | |||||
| Day | 137 (64.3) | 76 (35.7) | 1 | |||
| Non-night | 81 (52.6) | 73 (47.4) | 1.65 | 1.05–2.58 | 0.0293 | |
| Rotation | 139 (53.1) | 123 (46.9) | 1.73 | 1.15–2.61 | 0.0089 | |
*Family function was evaluated by APGAR score (good >6; poor ≤6). +Adjusting for the same covariates in Table 2.
Relationship of family function to shift work arrangement among the 804 rotation shift nurses categorized by current marital status
| Family function* | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GoodN (%) | PoorN (%) | AOR+ | 95% CI | ||||
| Total (N=804) | |||||||
| Period of shift change | 0.6941 | ||||||
| <1 wk | 247 (48.1) | 267 (51.9) | 1 | ||||
| ≥1 wk–<1 month | 78 (46.2) | 91 (53.8) | 1.13 | 0.78–1.64 | 0.5119 | ||
| ≥1 month | 60 (51.3) | 57 (48.7) | 0.9 | 0.57–1.43 | 0.6571 | ||
| Days off after the last night shift | 0.3146 | 0.4010 | |||||
| 1 d | 289 (47.1) | 324 (52.9) | 1 | ||||
| >1 d | 98 (51.3) | 93 (48.7) | 0.87 | 0.62–1.21 | |||
| Cumulative days of night shift in the 2 months | 0.5330 | ||||||
| ≤6 d | 149 (50.3) | 147 (49.7) | 1 | ||||
| 7–14 d | 154 (48.3) | 165 (51.7) | 1.02 | 0.73–1.42 | 0.9253 | ||
| ≥15 d | 82 (45.1) | 100 (54.9) | 1.19 | 0.81–1.75 | 0.3853 | ||
| Single (N = 542) | |||||||
| Period of shift change | 0.3202 | ||||||
| <1 wk | 161 (44.7) | 199 (55.3) | 1 | ||||
| ≥1 wk– <1 month | 47(44.3) | 59 (55.7) | 1.05 | 0.66–1.66 | 0.851 | ||
| ≥1 month | 40 (54.1) | 34 (45.9) | 0.61 | 0.35–1.07 | 0.0865 | ||
| Days off after the last night shift | 0.2807 | 0.3245 | |||||
| 1 d | 186 (44.5) | 232 (55.5) | 1 | ||||
| >1 d | 62 (50.0) | 62 (50.0) | 0.2807 | 0.81 | 0.54–1.23 | ||
| Cumulative days of night shift in the 2 months | 0.3655 | 0.3245 | |||||
| ≤6 d | 161 (44.7) | 199 (55.3) | 1 | ||||
| 7–14 d | 47 (44.3) | 59 (55.7) | 0.71 | 0.47–1.08 | 0.1106 | ||
| ≥15 d | 40 (54.1) | 34 (45.9) | 0.95 | 0.60–1.50 | 0.8159 | ||
| Married (N=262) | |||||||
| Period of shift change | 0.4539 | ||||||
| <1 wk | 86 (55.8) | 68 (44.2) | 1 | ||||
| ≥1 wk– <1 month | 91 (74.0) | 32 (26.0) | 1.42 | 0.73–2.74 | 0.2985 | ||
| ≥1 month | 20 (46.5) | 23 (53.5) | 1.83 | 0.79–4.24 | 0.1557 | ||
| Days off after the last night shift | 0.8974 | 0.7837 | |||||
| 1 d | 103 (52.8) | 92 (47.2) | 1 | ||||
| >1 d | 36 (53.7) | 31 (46.3) | 0.92 | 0.50–1.68 | |||
| Cumulative days of night shift in the 2 months | 0.0673 | ||||||
| ≤6 d | 78 (60.5) | 51 (39.5) | 1 | ||||
| 7–14 d++ | 40 (45.5) | 48 (54.5) | 2.01 | 1.12–3.59 | 0.0192 | ||
| ≥15 d++ | 19 (47.5) | 21 (52.5) | 1.81 | 0.84–3.93 | 0.1326 | ||
*Family function was evaluated by APGAR score (good >6; poor ≤6). +Adjusting for the same covariates in Table 2. ++AOR=1.95-fold; 95% CI=1.16–3.2; p value=0.0132, when combined the groups of 7–14 d and ≥15 d and compared with ≤6 d.