ArticleBMC public health2023
Long working hours and self-rated health in the national Brazilian working population: gender and employment status differences, 2019.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of social support with sleep and subjective health outcomes in Ghanaian artisanal miners.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prevalence of night work in the Brazilian employed population.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMTArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe regulation of working hours is governed by legal standards in formal employment. While the association between long working hours and various health outcomes has been extensively studied, there is limited evidence regarding Brazil. The objective of this study was to investigate the association among working hours, employment status, and self-rated health (SRH), taking into account differences between men and women in a national representative sample of the working population in Brazil.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among a representative sample of 33,713 workers in Brazil to assess self-rated health (SRH). We examined the associations between working hours and employment status, categorizing working hours as standard (40-44 h per week) or long (> 44 h per week), and employment status as formal or informal. Logistic regression models were employed, adjusting for sociodemographic, occupational characteristics, and health behaviors. Probabilities of negative SRH were calculated for men and women in different exposure profiles. Results were stratified by gender, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to the findings.
resultsThe prevalence of long working hours was higher among informal workers for both men and women. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) results revealed that informal employment (AORwomen = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.13-2.07 and AORmen = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.22-1.96) and long working hours (AORwomen = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.06-1.43 and AORmen = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.00-1.30) were independently associated with negative SRH. Significant interactions between long working hours and informal employment were observed. Among individuals with the same exposure profile, women who engaged in long working hours had a higher probability of reporting negative SRH compared to men.
conclusionsThe results of this study are in line with the literature, as differences between men and women in the likelihood of negative self-rated health were observed. The adverse health effects underscore the importance of implementing intersectoral actions to inform the revision of regulations concerning weekly working hours and the expansion of informal employment in low- and middle-income countries.
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.