ReviewJournal of sleep research2025
The British Sleep Society position statement on Daylight Saving Time in the UK.
Review 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- When the Solution May Be Worse Than the Problem: A Caution Against Permanent Daylight Saving Time, on Behalf of the Italian Academy of Sleep Medicine.Journal of sleep research · 2026Article
- Circadian Biomarkers Before and After the Transition to Spring Daylight Saving Time.Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Acute effects of daylight saving time clock changes on mental and physical health in England: population based retrospective cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Health-Framed Messaging and Its Impact on Attitudes Toward Daylight Saving Time.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The British Sleep Society position statement on Daylight Saving Time in the UK.Journal of sleep research · 2025Review
- Assessing the best hour to start the day: an appraisal of seasonal daylight saving time.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is an ongoing debate in the United Kingdom and in other countries about whether twice-yearly changes into and out of Daylight Saving Time should be abolished. Opinions are divided about whether any abolition of Daylight Saving Time should result in permanent Standard Time, or year-long Daylight Saving Time. The British Sleep Society concludes from the available scientific evidence that circadian and sleep health are affected negatively by enforced changes of clock time (especially in a forward direction) and positively by the availability of natural daylight during the morning. Thus, our recommendation is that the United Kingdom should abolish the twice-yearly clock change and reinstate Standard Time throughout the year.
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.