The unique requirements of shift work, such as sleeping and working at variable times, mean that current sleep hygiene guidelines may be inappropriate for shift workers. Current guidelines may also contradict fatigue management advice (e.g. advising against daytime napping). The present study utilized a Delphi methodology to determine expert opinion regarding the applicability of current guidelines for shift workers, the appropriateness of the term \"sleep hygiene,\" and develop tailored guidelines for shift workers.
The research team reviewed current guidelines and existing evidence to draft tailored guidelines. Seventeen individual guidelines, covering sleep scheduling, napping, sleep environment, bedtime routine, substances, light exposure, diet, and exercise were drafted. Experts from sleep, shift work, and occupational health fields (n = 155) were invited to review the draft guidelines using a Delphi methodology. In each round, experts voted on individual guidelines, with 70% agreement considered consensus. Where consensus was not reached, written feedback from experts was discussed and incorporated into subsequent iterations.
Of the experts invited, 68 (44%) agreed to participate, with 55 (35%) completing the third (final) round. Most experts (84%) agreed that tailored guidelines were required for shift workers. Consensus was reached on all guidelines after three rounds. One additional guideline (sleep inertia) and an introductory statement were developed, resulting in a final set of 18 individual guidelines, termed \"healthy sleep practices for shift workers.\"
This is the first study to develop tailored sleep hygiene guidelines for shift workers. Future research should investigate the acceptability and effectiveness of these guidelines amongst shift workers.

Women with multiple pregnancies are at risk for maternal complications such as preterm birth. Hazardous working conditions, such as physically demanding work and long and irregular working hours, might increase the risk of preterm birth.
This study primarily aimed to determine whether certain working conditions up to 20 weeks of pregnancy increase the risk of preterm birth in multiple pregnancies. The secondary objective was to evaluate whether the working conditions of Dutch women with multiple pregnancy have been adjusted to the guidelines of the Netherlands Society of Occupational Medicine.
We performed a prospective cohort study alongside the ProTWIN trial, a multicenter randomized controlled trial that assessed whether cervical pessaries could effectively prevent preterm birth. Women with paid work of >8 hours per week completed questionnaires concerning general health and working conditions between 16 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify work-related factors associated with preterm birth (32-36 weeks\' gestation) and very preterm birth (<32 weeks\' gestation). We analyzed a subgroup of participants who worked for more than half of the week (>28 hours). We calculated the proportion of women who reported work-related factors not in accordance with guidelines.
We studied 383 women, of whom 168 (44%) had been randomized to pessary, 142 (37%) to care as usual, and 73 (19%) did not participate in the randomized part of the study. After adjusting for confounding variables, working >28 hours was associated with very preterm birth (n=33; 78%) (adjusted odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-8.1), and irregular working times were associated with preterm birth (n=26, 17%) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.1) and very preterm birth (n=10; 24%) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-7.3). Within a subgroup of 213 participants working >28 hours per week, multivariable analysis showed that irregular working times (n=16; 20%) (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-10.1) and no/little freedom in performance of tasks (n=23; 28%) (adjusted odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-7.3) were associated with preterm birth. Irregular working times (n=9; 27%) (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-11.1), requiring physical strength (n=9; 27%) (adjusted odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-17.8), high physical workload (n=7; 21%) (adjusted odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-13.9), and no/little freedom in performing tasks (n=10; 30%) (adjusted odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-9.6) were associated with very preterm birth. Before 20 weeks of pregnancy, 224 (58.5%) women with multiple pregnancy continued to work under circumstances that were not in accordance with the guidelines.
In our cohort study, nearly 60% of women with multiple pregnancy continued to work under circumstances not in accordance with the guidelines to avoid physical and job strain and long and irregular working hours. Irregular hours were associated with preterm and very preterm birth, and long hours were associated with preterm birth.

As interest in circadian rhythms and their effects continues to grow, there is an increasing need to perform circadian studies in humans. Although the constant routine is the gold standard for these studies, there are advantages to performing more naturalistic studies. Here, a review of protocols for such studies is provided along with sample inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sleep routines, drug use, shift work, and menstrual cycle are addressed as screening considerations. Regarding protocol, best practices for measuring melatonin, including light settings, posture, exercise, and dietary habits are described. The inclusion/exclusion recommendations and protocol guidelines are intended to reduce confounding variables in studies that do not involve the constant routine. Given practical limitations, a range of recommendations is provided from stringent to lenient. The scientific rationale behind these recommendations is discussed. However, where the science is equivocal, recommendations are based on empirical decisions made in previous studies. While not all of the recommendations listed may be practical in all research settings and with limited potential participants, the goal is to allow investigators to make well informed decisions about their screening procedures and protocol techniques and to improve rigor and reproducibility, in line with the objectives of the National Institutes of Health.

Interventions and strategies to improve health through the management of circadian (re) adaptation have been explored in the field, and in both human and animal laboratory manipulations of shiftwork. As part of an initiative by the Working Time Society (WTS) and International Committee on Occupational Health (ICOH), this review summarises the literature on the management of circadian (re) adaption using bright light treatment. Recommendations to maximise circadian adaptation are summarised for practitioners based on a variety of shiftwork schedules. In slowly rotating night shift schedules bright light appears most suitable when used in connection with the first three night shifts. These interventions are improved when combined with orange glasses (to block blue-green light exposure) for the commute home. Non-shifting strategies involve a lower dosage of light at night and promoting natural daylight exposure during the day (also recommended for day shifts) in acordance with the phase and amplitude response curves to light in humans.

A substantial body of literature indicates that shift workers have a significantly higher risk of workplace accidents and injuries, compared to workers in regular daytime schedules. This can be attributed to work during nights which require workers to stay awake during normal sleeping hours and sleep during natural waking hours, leading to circadian desynchronization, sleep disruption and cognitive impairment. A fatigue-risk trajectory model developed by Dawson and McCulloch has been used to describe the series of events which may precede fatigue-related incidents. This includes insufficient sleep opportunities, impaired sleep, fatigue-behavioral symptoms, and fatigue-related errors. The purpose of this paper is to provide examples of control measures along each level of the fatigue-risk trajectory, which include: (i) work scheduling strategies to include breaks for adequate sleep opportunities; (ii) training and educational programs to help workers make best use of recovery times for quality sleep; (iii) fatigue-detection devices to alert workers and safety managers of fatigue-related behaviors and errors. A brief introduction to Fatigue-Risk Management systems is also included as a long-term sustainable strategy to maintain shift worker health and safety. The key statements in this paper represent a consensus among the Working Time Society regarding a multi-level approach to managing occupational sleep-related fatigue.

There is no standard definition of shift work universally, and no validated report of complete biological adjustment to shift work in workers. Similarly, the evidence for shift work tolerance is limited due to a small number of studies and a narrow range of outcome measures. This paper discusses evidence to date regarding individual differences in shift work tolerance and highlights areas for future research and recommendations for workplace practice. The few factors that are consistently associated with perceived or actual shift work tolerance are young age, low scores of morningness or being a late chronotype, low scores of languidity and neuroticism, high scores on extraversion, internal locus of control and flexibility and male sex. An important first step is to differentiate between factors that are potentially modifiable, such as those that are determined by lifestyle choices, and those factors specific to the working time arrangement. Identifying determinants of shift work tolerance and the ability to adjust to shift work, whether they are innate and/or acquired mechanisms, is important so workers who are less likely to tolerate shift work well can be self-identified and supported with appropriate harm/risk minimization strategies. This paper also identifies important areas for future research with the goal of increasing the evidence base on which we can develop evidence-based harm mitigation strategies for shift workers.

Working time arrangements that require shift work or other non-standard working hours have significant potential to encroach on time that is highly valued for family, social and leisure activity. This can often result in workers experiencing poorer work-family or work-life balance. Based on an extensive literature search and expert knowledge, primary risk factors were identified including shift work; long, irregular and unpredictable working hours; and work on evenings and weekends (in combination and independent of shift work). On the other hand, flexibility, in the form of adequate worker control over work schedules, may be a protective factor. In addition, workers experiencing excessive work-life conflict are likely to reduce their working hours, reflecting a reciprocal relationship between working hours and work-life balance. Workers\' families are also affected by shift work and non-standard working hours. Parents\' shift work is associated with poorer emotional and developmental outcomes for their children, and to a greater likelihood of risky behavior in adolescence. Additionally, the risk of separation or divorce is increased, especially for parents working night shifts. Due to relationships such as those above, the consequences of shiftwork and non-standard working hours on family and social life are largely dependent on a complex interaction between specific work schedules, other aspects of work organization, and family and individual worker characteristics. This article provides an overview of current evidence regarding the relationships between working time arrangements and various social and family variables, and concludes with shift scheduling and intervention recommendations to improve work-life balance and social well-being.

Potential effects of shift work on health are probably related to the misalignment between the light-dark cycle and the human activity-rest cycle. Light exposure at night mediates these effects, including social misalignment and leads to an inversion of activity and rest, which, in turn, is linked to changes in behaviours. This article reviews the epidemiological evidence on the association between shift work and health, and possible mechanisms underlying this association. First, evidence from findings of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in the last 10 yr is presented. In addition, it reports the larger single-occupation studies and recent large population-based studies of the general workforce. Koch\'s postulates were used to evaluate the evidence related to the development of disease as a result of exposure to shift work. Finally, we discussed limitations of the multiple pathways that link shift work with specific disorders and the methodological challenges facing shift work research. We concluded that the clearest indications of shift work being the cause of a disease are given when there is a substantial body of evidence from high quality field studies showing an association and there is good evidence from laboratory studies supporting a causal explanation of the link.

The Working Time Society (WTS), and the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) Scientific Committee on Shiftwork and Working Time, are twin organisations focused on conducting research, and informing practice, regarding the impact of work hours in general, and shiftwork in particular, on the efficiency, productivity, safety, well-being, health, and biological rhythms, of employees. Every 2-3 years since 1969, the WTS and ICOH have conducted a series of international symposia in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and South America. The purpose of these symposia is to provide a forum for the exchange of knowledge, and the discussion of contested issues, with researchers, employee representatives, regulators, and employers. The most recent symposium in this series - the 23rd International Symposium on Shiftwork and Working Time, entitled \"Toward a Global Consensus\" - was held on 19-23 June 2017, at Yulara, Australia, near Uluru. Since 2004, Chronobiology International has released a special issue after each symposium, and that tradition continues with a special issue that includes 17 contributions based on a selection of the 128 papers that were presented at the most recent symposium. Here, we provide an overview of the papers that comprise the special issue, and we briefly comment on the implications of the findings for shiftworkers and their employers.