MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence Of Working Hours On Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2954356967 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margie H. Davenport, Robin Featherstone, Ben Vandermeer, Meghan Sebastianski, Chenxi Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioMiscarriageObstetricsPregnancyConfidence intervalObservational studySmall for gestational ageGestational ageMeta-analysisPopulationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 90% of women remain employed during pregnancy. Long working hours have been hypothesized to be associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage and preterm delivery. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effect of long working hours (>40 hour work week) on maternal and fetal health outcomes. METHODS: Five electronic databases and two grey literature sources were searched up to March 12, 2018 and the results underwent duplicate independent screening. Studies of all designs were included (except case studies), and contained information on the Population [women who engaged in paid work during pregnancy], Exposure [>40 h work week], Comparator [working <=40 h/week], and Outcomes [preterm birth, low birthweight (birthweight<2,500g), small for gestational age, miscarriage, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction]. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effect, inverse variance method. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 41 observational studies (N=126,632) were included. “Low” to “Very low” quality evidence from observational studies revealed that compared with normal working hours (working <=40 h/week), long working hours were associated with an increased odds of having a preterm delivery (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.3, I2=53%), a small-for-gestational age baby (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.27, I2=47%) and miscarriage (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.59, I2=47%). When meta-analysis was restricted only to adjusted ORs, long working hours were associated with an increase in risk of preterm delivery (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.37, I2=60%) and miscarriage (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.78, I2=54%). We found no significant association between long work hours and low birth weight, pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension or intrauterine growth restriction. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging in a work week over 40 hours is associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Supported by an Occupational Health and Safety Futures Research Grant, Alberta SPOR SUPPORT Unit KT Platform and Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada National New Investigator Award (MD).

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicWorkplace Health and Well-being→French-language works237,207→