MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051439475 · doi:10.4037/ajcc2014876

Impact of Work Schedules on Sleep Duration of Critical Care Nurses

2014· article· en· W2051439475 on OpenAlexafffund
A. J. Hirsch Allen, Julie E. Park, Nassim Adhami, Demetrios Sirounis, Harriet Tholin, Peter Dodek, Ann E. Rogers, Najib Ayas

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Critical Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health Care
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSleep deprivationMedicineSleep (system call)Vigilance (psychology)Shift workSleep lossSleep patternsWork hoursNight workCircadian rhythmPhysical therapyWork (physics)PsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sleep deprivation leads to reduced vigilance and potentially impairs work performance. Nurses may work long shifts that may contribute to sleep deprivation. OBJECTIVE: To assess how nurses' sleep patterns are affected by work schedules and other factors. METHODS: Between October 2009 and June 2010, a total of 20 critical care nurses completed daily sleep and activity logs and a demographic survey and wore an actigraph to objectively measure sleep time for 14 days. RESULTS: In a multivariate model with controls for repeated measures, mean sleep time between consecutive work shifts was short: 6.79 hours between 2 day shifts and 5.68 hours between 2 night shifts (P = .01). Sleep time was much greater between days when no shifts were worked (8.53 hours), consistent with catch-up sleep during these times. Every minute of 1-way commuting time was associated with a reduction of sleep time by 0.84 minutes. CONCLUSION: Critical care nurses obtain reduced amounts of sleep between consecutive work shifts, particularly between consecutive night shifts. Whether this degree of sleep deprivation adversely affects patients' safety needs further study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Critical CareSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207