Search

The rail industry in Australia screens workers for probable obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) due to known safety risks. However, existing criteria to trigger screening only identify a small proportion of workers with OSA. The current study sought to examine the relationship between OSA risk and rail incidents in real-world data from Australian train drivers, and conducted a proof of concept analysis to determine whether more conservative screening criteria are justified. Health assessment (2016–2018) and subsequent rail incident data (2016–2020) were collected from two passenger rail service providers. Predictors included OSA status (confirmed no OSA with a sleep study, controlled OSA, unknown OSA [no recorded sleep assessment data] and confirmed OSA with no indication of treatment); OSA risk according to the current Standard, and OSA risk according to more conservative clinical markers (BMI threshold and cardiometabolic burden). Coded rail safety incidents involving the train driver were included. Data were analysed using zero-inflated negative binomial models to account for over-dispersion with high 0 counts, and rail safety incidents are reported using Incidence Risk Ratios (IRRs). A total of 751 train drivers, typically middle-aged, overweight to obese and mostly men, were included in analyses. There were 43 (5.7%) drivers with confirmed OSA, 62 (8.2%) with controlled OSA, 13 (1.7%) with confirmed no OSA and 633 (84.4%) drivers with unknown OSA. Of the 633 train drivers with unknown OSA status, 21 (3.3%) met 'at risk' criteria for OSA according to the Standard, and incidents were 61% greater (IRR: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.02–2.56) in the years following their health assessment compared to drivers who did not meet 'at risk' criteria. A more conservative OSA risk status using lower BMI threshold and cardiometabolic burden identified an additional 30 'at risk' train drivers who had 46% greater incidents compared to drivers who did not meet risk criteria (IRR (95% CI) 1.46 (1.00–2.13)). Our more conservative OSA risk criteria identified more workers, with greater prospective incidents. These findings suggest that existing validated tools could be considered in future iterations of the Standard in order to more sensitively screen for OSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessment of quality of life (QoL) in people living with sleep disorders using questionnaires is necessary to compare intervention benefits. Knowledge of the content and concepts covered by specific QoL instruments is essential to determine which instruments are best suited for conducting economic evaluations of sleep-related interventions. Objectives: This review aims to identify the QoL instruments that have been applied in economic evaluations of sleep disorder interventions and compare their conceptual overlap and content coverage using the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Methods: A systematic review of full economic evaluations in sleep published in peer-reviewed journals from conception to 30 May, 2023 was conducted. MEDLINE, PsychInfo, ProQuest, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Emcare were searched for eligible studies. Studies incorporating either generic or sleep-specific QoL instruments as the primary or secondary measures of effectiveness within a full economic evaluation were included. Quality appraisal against the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and EURONHEED checklists and mapping of QoL items to ICF categories were performed by two reviewers, with a third helping settle any potential differences. Results: Sixteen instruments were identified as having been used in sleep health economic evaluations. The EQ-5D-3L, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Insomnia Severity Index were the most widely used, but the latter two are predominantly diagnostic tools and not specifically designed to guide economic evaluations. Other instruments with broader ICF content coverage have been least used, and these include the Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, 15 Dimensions, Short-Form 6 Dimensions, 12-item Short Form Survey, 36-item Short Form Survey and the GRID Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Conclusions: This study provides an overview of current QoL instruments used in economic evaluations of sleep with respect to their content coverage. A combination of generic and sleep-specific instruments with broader ICF content coverage is recommended for such evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]