Ageing shift workers’ sleep and working‐hour characteristics after implementing ergonomic shift‐scheduling rules

We studied whether implementing binding ergonomic shift‐scheduling rules change ageing (≥45 years) social and healthcare employees’ (mean age 52.5 years, 95% women) working‐hour characteristics (e.g. weekly working hours, number and length of night shifts, and short shift intervals) and sleep. We compared an intervention group (n = 253) to a control group (n = 1,234) by survey responses (baseline 2007/2008, follow‐up 2012) and objective working‐hour characteristics (intervention group n = 159, control group n = 379) from 91 days preceding the surveys. Changes in working‐hour characteristics were analysed with repeated measures general linear models. The fully adjusted model (sociodemographics and full‐/part‐time work) showed that proportion of short shift intervals (<11 hr, p = .033) and weekend work (p = .01) decreased more in the intervention than in the control group. Changes in sleep outcomes were analysed with generalised logit model to binomial and multinomial variables. The fully adjusted model (sociodemographics, full‐/part‐time work, job strain, health behaviours, and perceived health) revealed higher odds in the intervention group for long sleep (≥9 hr; odds ratio [OR] 5.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.21–13.80), and lower odds of short sleep (<6 hr; OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57–0.92), having at least two sleep difficulties often (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.70), and more specifically difficulties in falling asleep (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41–0.77), waking up several times per night (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34–0.55), difficulties in staying asleep (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.82), and non‐restorative sleep (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54–0.90) than the control group. In conclusion, implementation of ergonomic shift‐scheduling rules resulted in minor changes in ageing employees’ objective working hours and a consistent buffering effect against worsening of sleep.