Organizational Risk Factors for Aircrew Health: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing the field of health and safety at work, the primary objective of the present systematic review was to analyze the organizational risk factors for aircrew health according to professional category (flight attendants and pilots/co-pilots) and their consequences. The secondary objective was to identify the countries in which studies were carried out, focusing on the quality of content of the publications. The Medline/Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies according to PRISMA statements. The risk of bias and the methodological quality of the studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Loney tools. Of the 3230 abstracts of articles screened, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the research conducted on risk factors for the work organization of aircrew was carried out in the United States and the European Union and had moderate or low-quality methodology and evidence. However, the findings are homogeneous and allow the most prevalent organizational risk factors for the health of aircrew to be determined, namely, high work demand, long hours, and night work. Consequently, the most pervasive health problems were sleep disturbances, mental health disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, and fatigue. Thus, the regulation of the aircrew profession must prioritize measures that minimize these risk factors to promote better health and sleep for these professionals and, consequently, to provide excellent safety for workers and passengers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".