ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2025
Limit values for the web instrument Need for Recovery based on health over two years and corresponding psychosocial working environment.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThe magnitude of fatigue or need for recovery (NFR) from work shifts could be used as a tool for health surveillance and for monitoring rehabilitation.ObjectiveTo develop a model to calculate the healthy limit value for NFR based on health over two years in a cohort of workers and from there healthy limit values for the psychosocial work environment. The model is to be used in a web instrument.MethodsBased on survey data from 1289 engineers, carpenters, nurses and home care employees, NFR was calibrated against six Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II) health scales. Regression models explored the correspondence between NFR at baseline and regularity in function impact on health over two years. Thereafter, the limit values for the psychosocial work environment were examined. Successive calculations concerned sensitivity and specificity of these limit values.ResultsThe baseline NFR value that predicted a set minimum level of regularity of impact on health from each health scale two years later (p < 0.001), formed a mean minimum of regularity NFR score of = 9.02. The limit healthy NFR value was set below this value to 9/33 points. Sensitivity regarding the limit healthy NFR value concerning prediction of an unhealthy NFR was 85%. Specificity regarding healthy cases was 74%. Healthy limit values for the psychosocial work environment concerned first of all work process resources and then work demands.ConclusionsA Need for Recovery limit value could be based on the frequency of the fatigue reaction and function impact on health (frequency).
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.