Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Equipo de protección individual para la prevención de enfermedades altamente infecciosas debidas a la exposición a fluidos corporales contaminados en el personal sanitario / Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

FUNDAMENTO: El personal sanitario que trata a pacientes con infecciones como el coronavirus (COVID-19) corre el riesgo de infectarse. Este utiliza equipos de protección individual (EPI) para protegerse de las gotas de la tos, los estornudos u otros fluidos corporales de los pacientes infectados y de las superficies contaminadas que puedan infectarlos. El EPI puede incluir delantales, batas o monos (un traje de una sola pieza), guantes, máscaras y equipo de respiración (respiradores) y gafas protectoras. El EPI debe ser puesto correctamente; puede ser incómodo de usar, y los trabajadores de la salud pueden contaminarse cuando se lo quitan. Algunos se han adaptado, por ejemplo, añadiendo pestañas para facilitar su retirada. Las organizaciones como los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de Estados Unidos ofrecen orientación sobre el procedimiento correcto para ponerse y quitarse el EPI. Esta es la actualización de 2020 de una revisión publicada por primera vez en 2016 y actualizada previamente en 2019. ¿QUÉ SE QUERÍA DESCUBRIR?: Se quería saber qué tipo de EPI o combinación de EPI confiere a los trabajadores de la salud la mejor protección; si la modificación del EPI para facilitar su retirada es efectiva; si seguir la guía para retirar el EPI reduce la contaminación; y si el entrenamiento reduce la contaminación. ¿QUÉ SE ENCONTRÓ?: Se encontraron 24 estudios relevantes con 2.278 participantes que evaluaron los tipos de EPI, EPI modificado, procedimientos para poner y quitar el EPI y tipos de entrenamiento. Dieciocho de los estudios no evaluaron a los trabajadores sanitarios que trataban a pacientes infectados, sino que simularon el efecto de la exposición a la infección mediante el uso de marcadores fluorescentes o virus o bacterias inofensivos. La mayoría de los estudios fueron pequeños, y solo 1 o 2 estudios abordaron cada una de las preguntas. TIPOS DE EPI: Cubrir más el cuerpo lleva a una mejor protección. Sin embargo, como esto suele estar asociado con una mayor dificultad para ponerse y quitarse el EPI y una menor comodidad, puede conducir a una mayor contaminación. Los monos son los EPI más difíciles de quitar, pero pueden ofrecer la mejor protección, seguida de los vestidos largos, batas y delantales. Los respiradores que se usan con los monos pueden proteger mejor que una máscara que se usa con una bata, pero son más difíciles de poner. Los tipos de EPI más transpirables pueden conducir a niveles similares de contaminación, pero son más cómodos. La contaminación fue común en la mitad de los estudios a pesar de la mejora del EPI. EPI MODIFICADO: Las batas que tienen guantes adheridos al puño, de manera que los guantes y la bata se quitan juntos y cubren la zona de la muñeca, y las batas que se modifican para que se ajusten bien al cuello pueden reducir la contaminación. Además, añadir lengüetas a los guantes y mascarillas también puede conducir a una menor contaminación. Sin embargo, un estudio no encontró menos errores al ponerse o quitarse las batas modificadas. ORIENTACIÓN SOBRE EL USO DEL EPI: Seguir la guía de los CDC para la eliminación del delantal o la bata, o cualquier instrucción para eliminar el EPI en comparación con las propias preferencias de un individuo, pueden reducir la autocontaminación. Quitarse la bata y los guantes en un solo paso, usar 2 pares de guantes y limpiar los guantes con lejía o desinfectante (pero no con alcohol) también puede reducir la contaminación. ENTRENAMIENTO DE LOS USUARIOS: El entrenamiento en persona, la simulación por computadora y el entrenamiento por video condujeron a menos errores en la extracción del EPI, tanto un entrenamiento entregado como material escrito solamente o una conferencia tradicional. CERTEZA DE LA EVIDENCIA: La certeza (confianza) en las evidencias es limitada porque los estudios simularon la infección (es decir, no fue real), y tuvieron un número de participantes pequeño. ¿QUÉ FALTA DESCUBRIR?: No hubo estudios que investigaran las gafas o las pantallas faciales. No queda claro cuál es la mejor manera de quitarse los EPI después de su uso y el mejor tipo de entrenamiento a largo plazo. Los hospitales deben organizar más estudios, y los investigadores deben ponerse de acuerdo sobre la mejor manera de simular la exposición a un virus. En el futuro, los estudios de simulación deben tener al menos 60 participantes cada uno, y utilizar la exposición a un virus inofensivo para evaluar qué tipo y combinación de EPI protege más. Sería útil que los hospitales pudieran registrar el tipo de EPI utilizado por sus trabajadores para proporcionar información urgente de la vida real. FECHA DE LA BÚSQUEDA: Esta revisión incluye pruebas publicadas hasta el 20 de marzo de 2020

No disponible

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Self-certification versus physician certification of sick leave for reducing sickness absence and associated costs.

BACKGROUND: From the societal and employers' perspectives, sickness absence has a large economic impact. Internationally, there is variation in sickness certification practices. However, in most countries a physician's certificate of illness or reduced work ability is needed at some point of sickness absence. In many countries, there is a time period of varying length called the 'self-certification period' at the beginning of sickness absence. During that time a worker is not obliged to provide his or her employer a medical certificate and it is usually enough that the employee notifies his or her supervisor when taken ill. Self-certification can be introduced at organisational, regional, or national level. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of introducing, abolishing, or changing the period of self-certification of sickness absence on: the total or average duration (number of sickness absence days) of short-term sickness absence periods; the frequency of short-term sickness absence periods; the associated costs (of sickness absence and (occupational) health care); and social climate, supervisor involvement, and workload or presenteeism (see Figure 1). SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all potentially eligible published and unpublished studies. We adapted the search strategy developed for MEDLINE for use in the other electronic databases. We also searched for unpublished trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We used Google Scholar for exploratory searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies for inclusion. We included studies carried out with individual employees or insured workers. We also included studies in which participants were addressed at the aggregate level of organisations, companies, municipalities, healthcare settings, or general populations. We included studies evaluating the effects of introducing, abolishing, or changing the period of self-certification of sickness absence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic literature search up to 14 June 2018. We calculated missing data from other data reported by the authors. We intended to perform a random-effects meta-analysis, but the studies were too different to enable meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 6091 records for inclusion. Five studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria: one is an RCT and four are CBA studies. One study from Sweden changed the period of self-certification in 1985 in two districts for all insured inhabitants. Three studies from Norway conducted between 2001 and 2014 changed the period of self-certification in municipalities for all or part of the workers. One study from 1969 introduced self-certification for all manual workers of an oil refinery in the UK.Longer compared to shorter self-certificationfor reducing sickness absence in workersOutcome: average duration of sickness absence periodsExtending the period of self-certification from one week to two weeks produced a higher mean duration of sickness absence periods: mean difference in change values between the intervention and control group (MDchange) was 0.67 days/period up to 29 days (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.55 to 0.79; 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence).The introduction of self-certification for a maximum of three days produced a lower mean duration of sickness absence up to three days (MDchange -0.32 days/period, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.25; 1 CBA study; very low-certainty evidence). The authors of a different study reported that prolonging self-certification from ≤ 3 days to ≤ 365 days did not lead to a change, but they did not provide numerical data (very low-certainty evidence). OUTCOME: number of sickness absence periods per workerExtending the period of self-certification from one week to two weeks resulted in no difference in the number of sickness absence periods in one RCT, but the authors did not report numerical data (low-certainty evidence).The introduction of self-certification for a maximum of three days produced a higher mean number of sickness absence periods lasting up to three days (MDchange 0.48 periods, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.63) in one CBA study (very low-certainty evidence).Extending the period of self-certification from three days to up to a year decreased the number of periods in one CBA study, but the authors did not report data (very low-certainty evidence). OUTCOME: average lost work time per 100 person-yearsExtending the period of self-certification from one week to two weeks resulted in an inferred increase in lost work time in one RCT (very low-certainty evidence).Extending the period of self-certification (introduction of self-certification for a maximum of three days (from zero to three days) and from three days to five days, respectively) resulted in more work time lost due to sickness absence periods lasting up to three days in two CBA studies that could not be pooled (MDchange 0.54 days/person-year, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.61; and MDchange 1.38 days/person-year, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.60; very low-certainty evidence).Extending the period of self-certification from three days up to 50 days led to 0.65 days less lost work time in one CBA study, based on absence periods lasting between four and 16 days. Extending the period of self-certification from three days up to 365 days resulted in less work time lost due to sickness absence periods longer than 16 days (MDchange -2.84 days, 95% CI -3.35 to -2.33; 1 CBA study; very low-certainty evidence). OUTCOME: costs of sickness absence and physician certificationOne RCT reported that the higher costs of sickness absence benefits incurred by extending the period of self-certification far outweighed the possible reduction in costs of fewer physician appointments by almost six to one (low-certainty evidence).In summary, we found very low-certainty evidence that introducing self-certification of sickness absence or prolonging the self-certification period has inconsistent effects on the mean number of sickness absence days, the number of sickness absence periods, and on lost work time due to sickness absence periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low- to very low-certainty evidence of inconsistent effects of changing the period of self-certification on the duration or frequency of short-term sickness absence periods or the amount of work time lost due to sickness absence. Because the evidence is of low or very low certainty, more and better studies are needed.

Five indicators were developed to assess the quality of reviews on preventive interventions.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop quality indicators for preventive effectiveness and to evaluate their use with Cochrane Reviews of primary preventive interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the quality of care framework, we searched the literature to develop a set of quality indicators. Two authors applied the quality indicators independently to a sample of Cochrane systematic reviews of primary prevention. RESULTS: Five quality indicators were developed: sample size, directness of evidence, adherence, harm, and costs. We applied the quality indicators to a random sample of 84 of a total of 264 Cochrane reviews of primary preventive interventions. Only 70% reviews (n = 59) complied with the indicator sample size, whereas 61% (n = 51) complied with directness of the outcome, 48% (n = 40) with adherence, 76% (n = 64) with harm, and 46% (n = 39) with the indicator cost. CONCLUSION: Applying the five quality indicators is feasible. The quality of evidence in reviews of primary prevention can be substantially improved. Trialists and review authors should provide more information especially on adherence, costs, and indirectness of the outcome. Methodological research is needed on how to incorporate cost information in systematic reviews and how to better deal with indirectness.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed.

Topical antifungals for seborrhoeic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Seborrhoeic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is distributed worldwide. It commonly affects the scalp, face and flexures of the body. Treatment options include antifungal drugs, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, keratolytic agents and phototherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antifungal agents for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and scalp in adolescents and adults.A secondary objective is to assess whether the same interventions are effective in the management of seborrhoeic dermatitis in patients with HIV/AIDS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to December 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982). We also searched trials registries and checked the bibliographies of published studies for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of topical antifungals used for treatment of seborrhoeic dermatitis in adolescents and adults, with primary outcome measures of complete clearance of symptoms and improved quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review author pairs independently assessed eligibility for inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We performed fixed-effect meta-analysis for studies with low statistical heterogeneity and used a random-effects model when heterogeneity was high. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 9052 participants. Of these, 45 trials assessed treatment outcomes at five weeks or less after commencement of treatment, and six trials assessed outcomes over a longer time frame. We believe that 24 trials had some form of conflict of interest, such as funding by pharmaceutical companies.Among the included studies were 12 ketoconazole trials (N = 3253), 11 ciclopirox trials (N = 3029), two lithium trials (N = 141), two bifonazole trials (N = 136) and one clotrimazole trial (N = 126) that compared the effectiveness of these treatments versus placebo or vehicle. Nine ketoconazole trials (N = 632) and one miconazole trial (N = 47) compared these treatments versus steroids. Fourteen studies (N = 1541) compared one antifungal versus another or compared different doses or schedules of administration of the same agent versus one another. KetoconazoleTopical ketoconazole 2% treatment showed a 31% lower risk of failed clearance of rashes compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.81, eight studies, low-quality evidence) at four weeks of follow-up, but the effect on side effects was uncertain because evidence was of very low quality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64, six studies); heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I² = 74%). The median proportion of those who did not have clearance in the placebo groups was 69%.Ketoconazole treatment resulted in a remission rate similar to that of steroids (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44, six studies, low-quality evidence), but occurrence of side effects was 44% lower in the ketoconazole group than in the steroid group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96, eight studies, moderate-quality evidence).Ketoconozale yielded a similar remission failure rate as ciclopirox (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26, three studies, low-quality evidence). Most comparisons between ketoconazole and other antifungals were based on single studies that showed comparability of treatment effects. CiclopiroxCiclopirox 1% led to a lower failed remission rate than placebo at four weeks of follow-up (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94, eight studies, moderate-quality evidence) with similar rates of side effects (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.11, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). Other antifungalsClotrimazole and miconazole efficacies were comparable with those of steroids on short-term assessment in single studies.Treatment effects on individual symptoms were less clear and were inconsistent, possibly because of difficulties encountered in measuring these symptoms.Evidence was insufficient to conclude that dose or mode of delivery influenced treatment outcome. Only one study reported on treatment compliance. No study assessed quality of life. One study assessed the maximum rash-free period but provided insufficient data for analysis. One small study in patients with HIV compared the effect of lithium versus placebo on seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face, but treatment outcomes were similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ketoconazole and ciclopirox are more effective than placebo, but limited evidence suggests that either of these agents is more effective than any other agent within the same class. Very few studies have assessed symptom clearance for longer periods than four weeks. Ketoconazole produced findings similar to those of steroids, but side effects were fewer. Treatment effect on overall quality of life remains unknown. Better outcome measures, studies of better quality and better reporting are all needed to improve the evidence base for antifungals for seborrhoeic dermatitis.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress as a result of lack of skills, organisational factors, and low social support at work. This may lead to distress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration in quality of life and service provision. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of work- and person-directed interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2 and Web of Science up to November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For organisational interventions, interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were also eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) where authors of trials used different scales to measure stress or burnout. We combined studies that were similar in meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 39 studies, making a total of 58 studies (54 RCTs and four CBA studies), with 7188 participants. We categorised interventions as cognitive-behavioural training (CBT) (n = 14), mental and physical relaxation (n = 21), combined CBT and relaxation (n = 6) and organisational interventions (n = 20). Follow-up was less than one month in 24 studies, one to six in 22 studies and more than six months in 12 studies. We categorised outcomes as stress, anxiety or general health.There was low-quality evidence that CBT with or without relaxation was no more effective in reducing stress symptoms than no intervention at one month follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.27 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.13; 332 participants). But at one to six months follow-up in seven studies (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.16; 549 participants, 13% relative risk reduction), and at more than six months follow-up in two studies (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.70; 157 participants) CBT with or without relaxation reduced stress more than no intervention.CBT interventions did not lead to a considerably greater effect than an alternative intervention, in three studies.Physical relaxation (e.g. massage) was more effective in reducing stress than no intervention at one month follow-up in four studies (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.08; 97 participants) and at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.24; 316 participants). Two studies did not find a considerable difference in stress between massage and taking extra breaks.Mental relaxation (e.g. meditation) led to similar stress symptom levels as no intervention at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.15; 205 participants) but to less stress in one study at more than six months follow-up. One study showed that mental relaxation reduced stress more effectively than attending a course on theory analysis and another that it was more effective than just relaxing in a chair.Organisational interventions consisted of changes in working conditions, organising support, changing care, increasing communication skills and changing work schedules. Changing work schedules (from continuous to having weekend breaks and from a four-week to a two-week schedule) reduced stress with SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; 2 trials, 180 participants). Other organisational interventions were not more effective than no intervention or an alternative intervention.We graded the quality of the evidence for all but one comparison as low. For CBT this was due to the possibility of publication bias, and for the other comparisons to a lack of precision and risk of bias. Only for relaxation versus no intervention was the evidence of moderate quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that CBT and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions. There is also low-quality evidence that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions have no effect on stress levels. More randomised controlled trials are needed with at least 120 participants that compare the intervention to a placebo-like intervention. Organisational interventions need better focus on reduction of specific stressors.

Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Are pharmacological interventions associated with better-quality sleep and alertness in shift workers? BOTTOM LINE: Low-quality evidence shows that melatonin is associated with 24 minutes longer daytime sleep after the shift but not with faster falling asleep compared with placebo. There is no association between hypnotics, such as zopiclone, and sleep outcomes, alertness, or harms. The alertness-promoting medications armodafinil and modafinil are associated with improved alertness during shift work but are also associated with headache and nausea.

Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work

BACKGROUND: Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst of work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. Selection criteria: We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while of work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. ...

Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work.

BACKGROUND: Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst of work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while of work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined caffeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness.