Abstract：
BACKGROUND: To limit exposures to occupational heat stress, leading occupational health and safety organizations recommend work-rest regimens to prevent core temperature from exceeding 38°C or increasing by ≥1°C. This scoping review aims to map existing knowledge of the effects of work-rest regimens in hot environments and to propose recommendations for future research based on identified gaps.
METHODS: We performed a search of 10 databases to retrieve studies focused on work-rest regimens under hot conditions.
RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included, of which 35 were experimental studies. Most studies were conducted in laboratory settings, in North America (71%), on healthy young adults, with 94% of the 642 participants being males. Most studies (66%) employed a protocol duration ≤240 min (222 ± 162 min, range: 37-660) and the time-weighted average wet-bulb globe temperature was 27 ± 4°C (range: 18-34). The work-rest regimens implemented were those proposed by the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygiene (20%), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (11%), or the Australian Army (3%). The remaining studies (66%) did not mention how the work-rest regimens were derived. Most studies (89%) focused on physical tasks only. Most studies (94%) reported core temperature, whereas only 22% reported physical and/or mental performance outcomes, respectively. Of the 35 experimental studies included, 77% indicated that core temperature exceeded 38°C.
CONCLUSIONS: Although work-rest regimens are widely used, few studies have investigated their physiological effectiveness. These studies were mainly short in duration, involved mostly healthy young males, and rarely considered the effect of work-rest regimens beyond heat strain during physical exertion.
METHODS: We performed a search of 10 databases to retrieve studies focused on work-rest regimens under hot conditions.
RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included, of which 35 were experimental studies. Most studies were conducted in laboratory settings, in North America (71%), on healthy young adults, with 94% of the 642 participants being males. Most studies (66%) employed a protocol duration ≤240 min (222 ± 162 min, range: 37-660) and the time-weighted average wet-bulb globe temperature was 27 ± 4°C (range: 18-34). The work-rest regimens implemented were those proposed by the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygiene (20%), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (11%), or the Australian Army (3%). The remaining studies (66%) did not mention how the work-rest regimens were derived. Most studies (89%) focused on physical tasks only. Most studies (94%) reported core temperature, whereas only 22% reported physical and/or mental performance outcomes, respectively. Of the 35 experimental studies included, 77% indicated that core temperature exceeded 38°C.
CONCLUSIONS: Although work-rest regimens are widely used, few studies have investigated their physiological effectiveness. These studies were mainly short in duration, involved mostly healthy young males, and rarely considered the effect of work-rest regimens beyond heat strain during physical exertion.
摘要：
背景：为了限制职业热应激的暴露，领先的职业健康和安全组织推荐工作休息方案，以防止核心温度超过38°C或增加≥1°C。此范围审查旨在绘制有关在炎热环境中工作休息方式的影响的现有知识，并根据已发现的差距为未来的研究提出建议。
方法：我们搜索了10个数据库，以检索针对高温条件下的工作休息方案的研究。
结果：包括49篇文章，其中35项是实验研究。大多数研究是在实验室环境中进行的，北美（71%）健康的年轻人，642名参与者中94%为男性。大多数研究(66%)采用的方案持续时间≤240分钟(222±162分钟，范围：37-660），时间加权平均湿球球温度为27±4°C（范围：18-34）。实行的工休制度是美国政府和工业卫生会议提出的(20%),国家职业安全与健康研究所（11％），或澳大利亚军队（3％）。其余的研究（66％）没有提到如何得出工作休息方案。大多数研究（89%）只关注物理任务。大多数研究（94%）报告了核心温度，而只有22%的人报告身体和/或心理表现结果，分别。在包括的35项实验研究中，77%表示核心温度超过38℃。
结论：尽管工作休息疗法被广泛使用，很少有研究调查它们的生理有效性。这些研究主要是持续时间短，主要涉及健康的年轻男性，很少考虑在体力消耗过程中超出热应变的工作休息方案的影响。
方法：我们搜索了10个数据库，以检索针对高温条件下的工作休息方案的研究。
结果：包括49篇文章，其中35项是实验研究。大多数研究是在实验室环境中进行的，北美（71%）健康的年轻人，642名参与者中94%为男性。大多数研究(66%)采用的方案持续时间≤240分钟(222±162分钟，范围：37-660），时间加权平均湿球球温度为27±4°C（范围：18-34）。实行的工休制度是美国政府和工业卫生会议提出的(20%),国家职业安全与健康研究所（11％），或澳大利亚军队（3％）。其余的研究（66％）没有提到如何得出工作休息方案。大多数研究（89%）只关注物理任务。大多数研究（94%）报告了核心温度，而只有22%的人报告身体和/或心理表现结果，分别。在包括的35项实验研究中，77%表示核心温度超过38℃。
结论：尽管工作休息疗法被广泛使用，很少有研究调查它们的生理有效性。这些研究主要是持续时间短，主要涉及健康的年轻男性，很少考虑在体力消耗过程中超出热应变的工作休息方案的影响。
