ArticleHealth services insights2026
Do Compressed Work Schedules Compromise Care Quality? A Five-Year Case Control Study in the Norwegian Long-Term Care Sector.
Article in Health services insights, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In a compressed work schedule, employees work extended shifts (≥10 hours) in exchange for fewer workdays. This shift schedule has been argued to both improve and compromise the quality of care. However, existing research remains limited and inconclusive. Objective: To assess whether extended shifts within compressed work schedules impact the risk of adverse outcomes among care recipients. Design: Quasi-experimental case control study. Method: We combined a nationwide organizational survey from 1,072 long-term care institution in Norway with registry data on service users from 2018-2022. At baseline, all participating organizations operated either a two-shift rotation (day/evening) with fixed night workers or a three-shift rotation (day/evening/night). The intervention group comprised organizations (n=320) that introduced a compressed schedule during the study period; the control group retained their existing shift rotations. Using difference in difference with multiple treatment times we analysed changes in proportion of service users within each organization experiencing at least one adverse outcome per month. Adverse outcomes were identified via diagnostic codes from the Norwegian Registry for Primary Health Care, including infections, chronic ulcers, accidents, and depression. Results: Overall, we found no difference in the risk of adverse outcomes (b -0.46, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.05). Stratified analyses indicated a significant reduction in adverse outcomes in nursing homes (b -0.79, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.10). However, we found no significant change in residential care (b 0.20, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.70) or home care (b -0.42, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.36). Conclusion: The findings neither discourage the use of compressed work schedules due to adverse outcomes nor indicate broad improvements. However, the results suggest potential context-specific benefits that warrant further investigation.
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.