暂无摘要。

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.

Traditionally, working time arrangements to limit fatigue-related risk have taken a prescriptive approach, which sets maximum shift durations in order to prevent excessive buildup of fatigue (and the associated increased risk) within shifts and sets minimum break durations to allow adequate time for rest and recovery within and/or between shifts. Prescriptive rule sets can be successful when, from a fatigue-related risk standpoint, they classify safe work hours as permitted and unsafe work hours as not permitted. However, prescriptive rule sets ignore important aspects of the biological factors (such as the interaction between circadian and homeostatic processes) that drive fatigue, which are critical modulators of the relationship between work hours and fatigue-related risk. As such, in around-the-clock operations when people must work outside of normal daytime hours, the relationship between regulatory compliance and safety tends to break down, and thus these rule sets become less effective. To address this issue, risk management-based approaches have been designed to regulate the procedures associated with managing fatigue-related risk. These risk management-based approaches are suitable for nighttime operations and a variety of other non-standard work schedules, and can be tailored to the particular job or industry. Although the purpose of these fatigue risk management approaches is to curb fatigue risk, fatigue risk cannot be measured directly. Thus, the goal is not on regulating fatigue risk per se, but rather to put in place procedures that serve to address fatigue before, during, and after potential fatigue-related incidents. Examples include predictive mathematical modeling of fatigue for work scheduling, proactive fatigue monitoring in the workplace, and reactive post-incident follow-up. With different risks and different needs across industries, there is no \"one size fits all\" approach to managing fatigue-related risk. However, hybrid strategies combining prescriptive rule sets and risk management-based approaches can create the flexibility necessary to reduce fatigue-related risk based on the specific needs of different work environments while maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight.

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.

The circadian time structure (CTS) has long been the subject of research in occupational medicine, but not to industrial toxicology, including methods of setting threshold limit values (TLVs) and employee biological monitoring. Numerous animal and human investigations document vulnerability to chemical, contagion, and other xenobiotics varies according to the circadian time of encounter. Permanent and rotating nightshift personnel are exposed to industrial contaminants in the same or higher concentration as dayshift personnel, and because of incomplete CTS adjustment to night work, contact with contaminants occurs during a different biological time than day workers. Thus, the amount of protection afforded by certain TLVs, especially for employees of high-risk settings who work night and other nonstandard shift schedules, might be inadequate. The CTS seems additionally germane to procedures of employee biological monitoring in that high-amplitude 24 h rhythms in biomarkers indicative of xenobiotic exposure may result in misjudgment of health risks when data are not gathered in sufficient frequency over time and properly interpreted. Biological reference values time-qualified for their rhythmic variation, currently of interest to laboratory medicine practice, are seemingly important to industrial medicine as circadian time and work-shift specific biological exposure indices to improve surveillance of personnel, particularly those working nonstandard shift schedules.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess perceptions of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour guidelines among radiology residency directors and chief residents with regard to resident training, the practice of radiology, the quality of resident life, and faculty and staff costs.
METHODS: An online survey was sent to radiology program directors and chief residents via the Association of University Radiologists.
RESULTS: The response rates were 36.7% for program directors and 18.6% for chief residents. Responses were generally weakly negative from both radiology program directors and chief residents.
CONCLUSIONS: Both radiology program directors and chief residents have negative perceptions of the effect of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour guidelines on radiology residency programs. There was significant disagreement between program directors and chief residents with regard to whether attending radiologists or residents would be more affected by the new guidelines.