ArticleJournal of sleep research2025
Pilot feasibility testing of biomathematical model recommendations for personalising sleep timing in shift workers.
Article in Journal of sleep research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Effects of programs on sleep improvement in shift-work nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Pilot feasibility testing of biomathematical model recommendations for personalising sleep timing in shift workers.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Understanding sleep health challenges of defence shift workers to design a digital, sleep and circadian management tool.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Lighting the path forward: the value of sleep- and circadian-informed lighting interventions in shift work.Sleep · 2024Article
- SleepSync: Early Testing of a Personalised Sleep-Wake Management Smartphone Application for Improving Sleep and Cognitive Fitness in Defence Shift Workers.Clocks & sleep · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sleep disturbances and circadian disruption play a central role in adverse health, safety, and performance outcomes in shift workers. While biomathematical models of sleep and alertness can be used to personalise interventions for shift workers, their practical implementation is undertested. This study tested the feasibility of implementing two biomathematical models-the Phillips-Robinson Model and the Model for Arousal Dynamics-in 28 shift-working nurses, 14 in each group. The study examined the overlap and adherence between model recommendations and sleep behaviours, and changes in sleep following the implementation of recommendations. For both groups combined, the mean (SD) percentage overlap between when a model recommended an individual to sleep and when sleep was obtained was 73.62% (10.24%). Adherence between model recommendations and sleep onset and offset times was significantly higher with the Model of Arousal Dynamics compared to the Phillips-Robinson Model. For the Phillips-Robinson model, 27% of sleep onset and 35% of sleep offset times were within ± 30 min of model recommendations. For the Model of Arousal Dynamics, 49% of sleep onset, and 35% of sleep offset times were within ± 30 min of model recommendations. Compared to pre-study, significant improvements were observed post-study for sleep disturbance (Phillips-Robinson Model), and insomnia severity and sleep-related impairments (Model of Arousal Dynamics). Participants reported that using a digital, automated format for the delivery of sleep recommendations would enable greater uptake. These findings provide a positive proof-of-concept for using biomathematical models to recommend sleep in operational contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.