Cited by 302Sleep and Work-Related FatigueWorkplace Health and Well-beingSleep and related disorders

The effect of the work environment on future sleep disturbances: A systematic review

Linton, Steven J., Kecklund, Göran, Franklin, Karl A., Leissner, Lena C., Sivertsen, Børge, Lindberg, Eva, Svensson, Anna C., Hansson, Sven O. +4 more·2015·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Workers often attribute poor sleep to factors at work. Despite the large number of workers with sleep disturbances, there is a lack of consensus on the relationship between the work environment and sleep. The purpose of this systematic review therefore was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation. To this end, we employed standardized methods to systematically locate, review, and tabulate the results of prospective or randomized studies of the impact of work factors on sleep disturbances. From the 7981 articles located in five databases, 24 fulfilled our inclusion criteria and formed the base of the review including meta-analyses of the effect sizes. Results showed that the psychosocial work variables of social support at work, control, and organizational justice were related to fewer sleep disturbances, while high work demands, job strain, bullying, and effort-reward imbalance were related to more future sleep disturbances. Moreover, working a steady shift was associated with disturbances while exiting shift work was associated with less disturbed sleep. We conclude that psychosocial work factors and the scheduling of work have an impact on sleep disturbances and this might be utilized in the clinic as well as for planning work environments. Future research needs to employ better methodology and focus on underlying mechanisms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2014.10.010

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 302

Authors
Linton, S. J., Kecklund, G., Franklin, K. A., Leissner, L. C., Sivertsen, B., Lindberg, E., Svensson, A. C., Hansson, S. O., Sundin, Ö., Hetta, J., Björkelund, C., & Hall, C.
Affiliations
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • SBU - Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SE)
Corresponding author
Linton, Steven J.
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
23
Pages
10-19
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037901611
Cited by
302
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
sleep disorders, work environment, psychosocial work factors, social support at work, job control, organizational justice, job demands, job strain, workplace harassment, effort-reward imbalance, shift work, work scheduling, occupational health
MeSH terms
Humans, Sleep Wake Disorders, Occupational Exposure, Workplace, Sleep Disorders, Circadian Rhythm

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review