SynthesisBMC public health2026
From factory floors to dream doors: a systematic review of sleep interventions in industrial workers.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn shift work, where sleeping and working is contrary to the usual circadian rhythm, poor sleep is often associated with observed higher risk for worse functioning, health, and well-being. Sleep-enhancing targeted promotion could be a promising work place health intervention to counteract these risk factors. The objective of this study was to systematically review to what extent and with what efficacy sleep interventions are already being used in shift work settings.
methodsWe searched five databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO, until June 18th, 2024) for any controlled intervention study on shift workers adopting any sleep-enhancing interventions with any control/comparator and any outcome in the context of health, work ability, or sleep. The risk of bias tool II (for RCTs) and, for the non-randomized studies, the ROBINS-I-tool were used for risk of bias ratings.
resultsThe search yielded 11,261 studies after duplicate removal. Six studies (3 randomized controlled studies (RCTs), 3 non-randomized interventions, 518 participants) could finally be included in this review. Three studies adopted behavioral interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy), one used a pharmacological treatment (melatonin), and two applied an environmental approach (light exposure). Some concerns for an overall risk of bias were given in the RCTs, whilst the non-randomized controlled studies were judged to have a serious overall risk of bias. The efficacy of the interventions was mixed with beneficial and non-beneficial effects regarding the sleep parameters observed.
conclusionsIn terms of optimizing industrial workers’ health, well-being and productivity, sleep interventions seem promising. Such interventions can be offered on a low-threshold without interfering everyday (working) life. Future research is needed not only to further prove the efficacy of such interventions, but also to derive practical implications and recommendations for suitable interventions.
trial registrationThis systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024559360).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.