Towards evidence based psychosocial interventions to support workers in reducing the health and wellbeing impacts of working shifts

Shift work is becoming more prevalent as a working pattern, with current literature suggesting that working shifts may negatively impact on many aspects of health and wellbeing. Following requests from organisations for public health support in this area, a systematic review was completed to identify psychosocial interventions that may support shift workers. The systematic review highlighted the paucity of psychosocial interventions that have been developed for shift workers, which led to the development of this research study. This qualitative research investigated the challenges of shift work and health and wellbeing issues for staff and their managers working within an aeronautical organisation. Thematic analysis identified three themes and five sub-themes. The themes explored issues around isolation, gendered health norms and who is taking responsibility for the health of the shift workers. Potential psychosocial interventions that may support the shift workers are explored from a health psychology prospectiv

North Korea and Sino-Soviet Competition

GovernmentMaster of Arts (M.A.

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF); Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 20, Revision 3 (FGE.20Rev3): Benzyl alcohols, benzaldehydes, a related acetal, benzoic acids, and related esters from chemical groups 23 and 30

<p>The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate five flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 304, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. None of the substances were considered to have genotoxic potential. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach (the Procedure) that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that the three substances [FL-no: 16.117, 16.123 and 16.125] do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. For the remaining two candidate substances [FL-no: 16.118 and 16.124], no appropriate NOAEL was available and additional data are required. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Specifications including complete purity criteria and identity for the materials of commerce have been provided for all five candidate substances.</p&gt