ArticleBMC public health2026
Associations of combined work schedules and atypical working hours with mental health among South Korean police officers: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAtypical working hours, including long working hours and weekend work, are established psychosocial risk factors for poor mental health and suicide in the general working population. Despite South Korea’s demanding working environment—characterized by extended hours—the mental health effects of combined atypical working hours and work schedules remain poorly understood, particularly in high-risk occupations such as policing. This study compared mental health outcomes among police officers according to combinations of work schedules and atypical working hours.
methodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed data from 1,087 police officers collected in 2022 as part of the Mental Health Cohort of Police Officers in Korea. Combined work patterns were defined by work schedules (rotating shift work vs. fixed-day work) and atypical working hours: long working hours (> 52 h/week) and weekend work (≥ 4 h on weekends). Associations with mental health outcomes were examined using Poisson regression to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were stratified by sex for work schedule comparisons and pooled with sex adjustment for combined patterns to ensure statistical power.
resultsRotating shift work was associated with a higher prevalence of insomnia than fixed-day work, with more than a twofold increase among female officers (multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.11–5.11). In pooled analyses, rotating shift work with or without long working hours was associated with insomnia compared with fixed-day work without long working hours or weekend work. Notably, fixed-day work combined with both long working hours and weekend work exhibited the highest aPRs for insomnia (aPR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.23–6.16) and anxiety (aPR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.27–4.89), and was significantly associated with depression (aPR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.04–2.52).
conclusionsRotating shift work was associated with insomnia, whereas the combination of long working hours and weekend work within fixed-day work showed the strongest associations with insomnia, depression, and anxiety. These results suggest that circadian variability primarily affects sleep among shift workers, whereas psychosocial variability (e.g., mandatory or unpredictable overtime) may contribute to insomnia, depression, and anxiety concurrently among fixed-day workers. Organizational interventions to limit mandatory overtime and reduce schedule unpredictability are urgently needed to protect police officers’ mental health.
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.