Search

Several studies exist that have conducted research into the effects of different shiftwork patterns on the individual, especially regarding 8 and 12 h rosters. The findings of these studies have been largely supportive of longer shifts, however, the effects on work performance are not as clear cut. This study aimed to examine the changeover from an 8 h roster to a 12 h roster in a power station via monitoring on-shift performance, general health and well-being, sleep and mood behaviour, as well as absence and accident data. Results suggest that the domestic and social life of workers was markedly improved under the 12 h roster. Improvements in physical health, sleeping behaviour and mood state of employees were also documented. On-shift performance measures showed an increase in error rates at the end of a 12 h shift. Ways of reducing the risk of error towards the end of a 12 h shift should be explored. The results of this study suggest that 12 h shifts are a valid alternative to 8 h shifts in this particular workplace, although tasks that require error-free activities should not be performed towards the end of a 12 h shift.

A study of the effect of changing over from 8-hour to 12-hour shifts by computer operators reveals that the shift causes improved psychological health states and reduced feelings of fatigue. Job satisfaction and productivity measures are not impaired. The study considered data on sleeping and eating patterns, mood state, work quality and productivity of 8-hour and 12-hour shift groups.

Abstract Background Access to good quality information from injury surveillance is essential to develop and monitor injury prevention activities. To determine if information obtained from surveillance is of high quality, the limitations and strengths of a surveillance system are often examined. Guidelines have been developed to assist in evaluating certain types of surveillance systems. However, to date, no standard guidelines have been developed to specifically evaluate an injury surveillance system. The aim of this research is to develop a framework to guide the evaluation of injury surveillance systems. Methods The development of an Evaluation Framework for Injury Surveillance Systems (EFISS) involved a four stage process. First, a literature review was conducted to identify an initial set of characteristics that were recognised as important and/or had been recommended to be assessed in an evaluation of a surveillance system. Second, this set of characteristics was assessed using SMART criteria. Third, those surviving were presented to an expert panel using a two round modified-Delphi study to gain an alternative perspective on characteristic definitions, practicality of assessment, and characteristic importance. Finally, a rating system was created for the EFISS characteristics. Results The resulting EFISS consisted of 18 characteristics that assess three areas of an injury surveillance system – five characteristics assess data quality, nine characteristics assess the system's operation, and four characteristics assess the practical capability of an injury surveillance system. A rating system assesses the performance of each characteristic. Conclusion The development of the EFISS builds upon existing evaluation guidelines for surveillance systems and provides a framework tailored to evaluate an injury surveillance system. Ultimately, information obtained through an evaluation of an injury data collection using the EFISS would be useful for agencies to recommend how a collection could be improved to increase its usefulness for injury surveillance and in the long-term injury prevention.

Three experiments examined the effect of different kinds of background features on children's orientation discrimination. A fourth experiment tested the hypothesis that errors in discrimination of obliques can be attributed mainly to confusion over the left-right direction of tilt. Subjects were 160 five-year-old and 20 seven-year-old children. (MP)

A letter to the editor and a reply are presented in response to the article "Estimates of drowning morbidity and mortality adjusted for exposure to risk," by Rebecca J. Mitchell and colleagues in the 2010 issue.