The Impact of Shift Work on Women’s Neurological Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Shift work is associated with detrimental effects on health and well-being, including poor sleep quality, shorter sleep duration, and abnormal sleep timing leading to augmented fatigue. In the United States, 15.2% of women are employed in shift work, which can lead to long-term disrupted circadian rhythms. It is vital to focus on women shift workers because, beyond the physiological changes shift work can make, it is difficult for women to protect their sleep and maintain a balanced domestic and social life. There is limited research on women shift workers beyond the nursing population. Aims: In this study, we described (Aim 1) and identified (Aim 2) the relationships among disrupted circadian rhythm, sleep quality (perceived), levels of fatigue, and cognitive executive function in women shift workers. For Aim 3, we utilized qualitative descriptive methodology to explore the women’s perceptions of the variables examined in Aims 1 and 2. Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design utilizing a mixed-method sequential approach. The (N=118) women were recruited from 24-hour industrial and service organizations in the Southeast United States. Quantitative measures include a demographic questionnaire, Munich Chronotype Questionnaire-Shift (MCTQShift), Pittsburgh Sleep Index (PSQI), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), National Institute of Health Eating at America’s Table (EATS) quick food scan, and Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity (RAPA). For Aim 3, (n=14) women from the original sample participated in one of four focus groups. The data analysis plan included descriptive statistics, correlations, multiple linear regression, and thematic analysis. Findings: In this study, 86.4% of the total sample had a global PSQI score >5, 53.69 % reported perceived fatigue measured by the FSS, and 54.2% had decreased cognitive executive function. Eight themes were identified from Aim 3 data (1) lots of sleep lost, (2) day sleep difficulties, (3) negative consequences, (4) shift work sleepiness, (5) missing out, (6) not in my own thoughts, (7) health is harmed, and (8) drowsy driving. Conclusions: The findings suggest shift work is associated with poor sleep quality, fatigue, day sleep difficulties, short sleep, and has a negative impact on women’s emotional, mental, and physical health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".