MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360853457 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11070937

The Relationship between Working Night Shifts and Depression among Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4360853457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chidiebere Emmanuel Okechukwu, Corrado Colaprico, Sofia Di Mario, Agbonvihele Gregrey Oko-oboh, David Shaholli, Maria Vittoria Manai, Giuseppe La Torre

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisConfidence intervalDepression (economics)Odds ratioScopusMedicineStatisticShift workMental healthSleep deprivationMEDLINESystematic reviewPsychologyPsychiatryGerontologyDemographyInternal medicineStatisticsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: For many years, occupational physicians have debated whether there is a link between working the night shift and depression and other co-occurring mental health issues, with an emphasis on work-related, biological, individual, and environmental factors. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall association between sleep deprivation and depression among nurses working night shifts. Methods: A systematic search was carried out across the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 30 September 2022, for studies that reported a relationship between estimated night shift work and depression in nurses. The outcomes were measured using the odds ratio (OR) and matching 95% confidence interval (CI). The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation technique was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence, and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess the methodological quality of each of the included studies. We determined the overall relationship between working nights and the onset of depression. Results: A total of 20 studies were included in the systematic review. Furthermore, 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis due to their common use of the OR as an effect measure. The 8 studies gave an overall estimate indicating a statistically significant association between night shift work and depression among nurses (OR = 1.49 95% CI: 1.26, 1.76). The prediction interval for the overall estimate was (0.995, 2.231). This implies that the true OR in a future study would most likely fall within this range, with a 95% certainty. Conclusions: The outcome of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed a significant association between night shift work, the circadian and sleep disruption it causes, and the risk of depression in nurses. This demonstrates that nurses who work night shifts are at risk of developing depression.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.036
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.145 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207