Hardy A van de Ven1, Jac J L van der Klink1, Céline Vetter2,3, Till Roenneberg3, Marijke Gordijn4, Wendy Koolhaas1, Michiel P de Looze5,6, Sandra Brouwer1, Ute Bültmann1. 1. a Division of Community and Occupational Medicine, Department of Health Sciences , University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen , Groningen , The Netherlands. 2. b Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA. 3. c Institute of Medical Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich , Munich , Germany. 4. d Chronobiology Unit, GELIFES, University of Groningen , Groningen , The Netherlands. 5. e TNO , Leiden , The Netherlands. 6. f Department of Human Movement Sciences , VU University , Amsterdam , The Netherlands.
Abstract
This study examined associations of chronotype and age with shift-specific assessments of main sleep duration, sleep quality and need for recovery in a cross-sectional study among N = 261 industrial shift workers (96.6% male). Logistic regression analyses were used, adjusted for gender, lifestyle, health, nap behaviour, season of assessment and shift schedule. Shift workers with latest versus earliest chronotype reported a shorter sleep duration (OR 11.68, 95% CI 3.31-41.17) and more awakenings complaints (OR 4.84, 95% CI 4.45-11.92) during morning shift periods. No associations were found between chronotype, sleep and need for recovery during evening and night shift periods. For age, no associations were found with any of the shift-specific outcome measures. The results stress the importance of including the concept of chronotype in shift work research and scheduling beyond the concept of age. Longitudinal research using shift-specific assessments of sleep and need for recovery are needed to confirm these results. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: Chronotype seems to better explain individual differences in sleep than age. In view of ageing societies, it might therefore be worthwhile to further examine the application of chronotype for individualised shift work schedules to facilitate healthy and sustainable employment.
This study examined associations of chronotype and age with shift-specific assessments of main sleep duration, sleep quality and need for recovery in a cross-sectional study among N = 261 industrial shift workers (96.6% male). Logistic regression analyses were used, adjusted for gender, lifestyle, health, nap behaviour, season of assessment and shift schedule. Shift workers with latest versus earliest chronotype reported a shorter sleep duration (OR 11.68, 95% CI 3.31-41.17) and more awakenings complaints (OR 4.84, 95% CI 4.45-11.92) during morning shift periods. No associations were found between chronotype, sleep and need for recovery during evening and night shift periods. For age, no associations were found with any of the shift-specific outcome measures. The results stress the importance of including the concept of chronotype in shift work research and scheduling beyond the concept of age. Longitudinal research using shift-specific assessments of sleep and need for recovery are needed to confirm these results. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: Chronotype seems to better explain individual differences in sleep than age. In view of ageing societies, it might therefore be worthwhile to further examine the application of chronotype for individualised shift work schedules to facilitate healthy and sustainable employment.
Authors: Alwin van Drongelen; Cécile R L Boot; Hynek Hlobil; Tjabe Smid; Allard J van der Beek Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: D Stock; J A Knight; J Raboud; M Cotterchio; S Strohmaier; W Willett; A H Eliassen; B Rosner; S E Hankinson; E Schernhammer Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Beverly M Hittle; Claire C Caruso; Holly J Jones; Amit Bhattacharya; Joshua Lambert; Gordon L Gillespie Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Manzur Kader; Carolina Bigert; Tomas Andersson; Jenny Selander; Theo Bodin; Helena Skröder; Mikko Härmä; Maria Albin; Per Gustavsson Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Jennifer Ritonja; Kristan J Aronson; Raymond W Matthews; Diane B Boivin; Thomas Kantermann Journal: Ind Health Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.179