Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36948632›Full record

ReviewIndustrial health2024

How much advance notice do workers need? A review and theoretical framework for determining advance notice periods for unpredictable work.

Madeline Sprajcer, Sally A Ferguson, Drew Dawson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Industrial health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Madeline SprajcerAppleton Institute, Central Queensland University, Australia.
Sally A FergusonAppleton Institute, Central Queensland University, Australia.
Drew DawsonAppleton Institute, Central Queensland University, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory guidance materials for fatigue management typically advise that employees be provided with days or weeks of advance notice of schedules/rosters. However, the scientific evidence underpinning this advice is unclear. A systematic search was performed on current peer reviewed literature addressing advance notice periods, which found three relevant studies. A subsequent search of grey literature to determine the quality of evidence for the recommendation for advance notice periods returned 37 relevant documents. This review found that fatigue management guidance materials frequently advocated advance notice for work shifts but did not provide empirical evidence to underpin the advice. Although it is logical to suggest that longer notice periods may result in increased opportunities for pre-work preparations, improved sleep, and reduced worker fatigue, the current guidance appears to be premised on this reasoning rather than empirical evidence. Paradoxically, it is possible that advance notice could be counterproductive, as too much may result in frequent alterations to the schedule, particularly where adjustments to start and end times of the work period are not uncommon (e.g., road transport, rail). To assist organisations in determining the appropriate amount of advance notice to provide, we propose a novel theoretical framework to conceptualise advance notice.

Indexed as

Sleep Disorders, Circadian RhythmWork Schedule ToleranceFatigueHumansSleepHours of workOn-callPredictabilitySleepWork scheduling

Identifiers

PMID36948632
PMCPMC10865088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.