Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work

BACKGROUND: Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst of work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. Selection criteria: We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while of work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined cafeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness

Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work

BACKGROUND: Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst of work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. Selection criteria: We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while of work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined cafeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed

Alcohol and drug screening of occupational drivers for preventing injury.

Background: Workforce alcohol and drug testing is commonplace but its effect in reducing occupational injuries remains unclear. Objectives: To assess the effects of alcohol and drug screening of occupational drivers (operating a motorised vehicle) in preventing injury or work-related effects such as sickness absence related to injury. Search strategy: We searched the following databases up to June 2007 (or up to the latest issue then available): MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Occupational Health Field's specialised register, DARE, PsychINFO, ERIC, ETOH, CISDOC, NIOSHTIC, TRANSPORT, Zetoc, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation index and HSELINE. We also searched reference lists, relevant websites and conducted hand searching. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies (more than three time points to be measured before and after the study) and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies that evaluated alcohol or drug screening interventions for occupational drivers (compared to another intervention or no intervention) with an outcome measured as a reduction in injury or a proxy measure thereof. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We contacted authors of the included studies for further information. Main results: We included two interrupted time-series studies conducted in the USA. One study was conducted in five large US transportation companies (N = 115,019) that carried passengers and/or cargo. Monthly injury rates were available from 1983 to 1999. In the study company, two interventions of interest were evaluated: mandatory random drug testing and mandatory random and for-cause alcohol testing programmes. The third study focused only on mandatory random drug testing and was conducted on federal injury data that covered all truck drivers of interstate carriers. We recalculated the results from raw data provided by the study authors. Following reanalysis, we found that in one study mandatory random and for-cause alcohol testing was associated with a significant decrease in the level of injuries immediately following the intervention (-1.25 injuries/100 person years, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.21) but did not significantly affect the existing long-term downward trend (-0.28 injuries/100 person years/year, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.21). Mandatory random drug testing was significantly associated with an immediate change in injury level following the intervention (1.26 injuries/100 person years, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.16) in one study, and in the second study there was no significant effect (-1.36/injuries/100 person years, 95% CI -1.69 to 0.41). In the long term, random drug testing was associated with a significant increase in the downward trend (-0.19 injuries/100 person years/year, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.07) in one study, the other study was also associated with a significant improvement in the long-term downward trend (-0.83 fatal accidents/100 million vehicle miles/year, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.58). Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of drug and alcohol testing of occupational drivers for preventing injuries as a sole, effective, long-term solution in the context of workplace culture, peer interaction and other local factors. Cluster-randomised trials are needed to better address the effects of interventions for injury prevention in this occupational setting

Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work

BACKGROUND: Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst of work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. Selection criteria: We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while of work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined cafeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

Background In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients’ contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. Objectives To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. Search methods We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. Selection criteria We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. Main results We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment. Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS. Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality