How effective are Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS)? A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) are a data-driven set of management practices for identifying and managing fatigue-related safety risks. This approach also considers sleep and work time, and is based on ongoing risk assessment and monitoring. This narrative review addresses the effectiveness of FRMS, as well as barriers and enablers in the implementation of FRMS. Furthermore, this review draws on the literature to provide evidence-based policy guidance regarding FRMS implementation. METHODS: Seven databases were drawn on to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature. Relevant grey literature was also reviewed based on the authors' experience in the area. In total, 2129 records were screened based on the search strategy, with 231 included in the final review. RESULTS: Few studies provide an evidence-base for the effectiveness of FRMS as a whole. However, FRMS components (e.g., bio-mathematical models, self-report measures, performance monitoring) have improved key safety and fatigue metrics. This suggests FRMS as a whole are likely to have positive safety outcomes. Key enablers of successful implementation of FRMS include organisational and worker commitment, workplace culture, and training. CONCLUSIONS: While FRMS are likely to be effective, in organisations where safety cultures are insufficiently mature and resources are less available, these systems may be challenging to implement successfully. We propose regulatory bodies consider a hybrid model of FRMS, where organisations could choose to align with tight hours of work (compliance) controls. Alternatively, where organisational flexibility is desired, a risk-based approach to fatigue management could be implemented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".