SynthesisInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2025
The consequences of a compressed workweek: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The compressed workweek in public health and social care - is it sustainable?Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Article
- Article
- The association between night shift work and elevated risk of smoking use among ride-hailing drivers: findings from a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Do Compressed Work Schedules Compromise Care Quality? A Five-Year Case Control Study in the Norwegian Long-Term Care Sector.Health services insights · 2026Article
- The consequences of after-hours work: a fixed-effect study of burnout, pain, detachment and work-home conflict among Norwegian workers.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCompressed workweek arrangements, where employees work extended daily hours in exchange for fewer workdays, are adopted to address individual and organizational needs. While advocates highlight benefits such as improved work-life balance and reduced commuting time, the effects on employee health/well-being and work outcomes remain unclear. The objective of the current paper is to summarize existing knowledge on the longitudinal relationship between compressed workweeks and employee health/wellbeing and work outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, and Web of Science in March 2023. We included peer-reviewed publications that empirically investigated the longitudinal relationship between compressed work schedules and employee health/well-being or work outcomes in employees working no more than 55 h a week. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The study is registered in Prospero (CRD42020172595).
resultsThe 20 longitudinal studies yielded mixed results, identifying positive and negative effects on health/well-being and work outcomes. Most studies found no significant differences in at least one outcome. Results suggest that a compressed workweek increases sickness absence but also improves shift satisfaction. Predominantly negative health effects were observed when comparing a compressed workweek to fixed day work, mixed effects when comparing a compressed workweek with 12 h shifts to alternative shifts arrangements, and limited evidence for a compressed workweek with 10 h shifts.
conclusionThe impact of compressed workweeks remains uncertain, demonstrating mixed results on employee health and work outcomes. The findings vary depending on the length of shifts and alternative schedule.
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.