Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Sleep duration and sleep efficiency in UK long-distance heavy goods vehicle drivers
  1. Aron Peter Sherry1,2,
  2. Stacy A Clemes1,2,
  3. Yu-Ling Chen1,
  4. Charlotte Edwardson2,3,
  5. Laura J Gray4,
  6. Amber Guest1,
  7. James King1,2,
  8. Alex V Rowlands2,3,
  9. Katharina Ruettger1,
  10. Mohsen Sayyah1,
  11. Veronica Varela-Mato1,
  12. Iuliana Hartescu1
  1. 1School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
  2. 2National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, East Midlands, UK
  3. 3Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University of Leicester, Leicester, Leicestershire, UK
  4. 4Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Aron Peter Sherry, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK; a.p.sherry{at}lboro.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To profile sleep duration and sleep efficiency in UK long-distance heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers and explore demographic, occupational and lifestyle predictors of sleep.

Methods Cross-sectional analyses were carried out on 329 HGV drivers (98.5% men) recruited across an international logistics company within the midland’s region, UK. Sleep duration and efficiency were assessed via wrist-worn accelerometry (GENEActiv) over 8 days. Proportions of drivers with short sleep duration (<6 hour/24 hours and <7 hour/24 hours) and inadequate sleep efficiency (<85%) were calculated. Demographic, occupational and lifestyle data were collected via questionnaires and device-based measures. Logistic regression assessed predictors of short sleep duration and inadequate sleep efficiency.

Results 58% of drivers had a mean sleep duration of <6 hour/24 hours, 91% demonstrated <7-hour sleep/24 hours and 72% achieved <85% sleep efficiency. Sleeping <6 hour/24 hours was less likely in morning (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94) and afternoon (OR 0.24, CI 0.10 to 0.60) shift workers (vs night) and if never smoked (vs current smokers) (OR 0.45, CI –0.22 to 0.92). The likelihood of sleeping <7 hour/24 hours reduced with age (OR 0.92, CI 0.87 to 0.98). The likelihood of presenting inadequate sleep efficiency reduced with age (OR 0.96, CI 0.93 to 0.99) and overweight body mass index category (vs obese) (OR 0.47, CI 0.27 to 0.82).

Conclusions The high prevalence of short sleep duration and insufficient sleep quality (efficiency) rate suggest that many HGV drivers have increased risk of excessive daytime sleepiness, road traffic accidents and chronic disease. Future sleep research in UK HGV cohorts is warranted given the road safety and public health implications.

  • sleep
  • occupational health
  • public health
  • preventive medicine
  • accidents

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Anonymised participants data were collected in a protected database and are available on reasonable request from AS (a.p.sherry@lboro.ac.uk).

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Anonymised participants data were collected in a protected database and are available on reasonable request from AS (a.p.sherry@lboro.ac.uk).

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors APS contributed to study data collection, data processing, study conception, analysis and interpretation of the data, and primary manuscript preparation. IH and SAC contributed to the study conception, interpretation of the data and manuscript preparation/revision. CE, JK and AVR were involved in data interpretation and revision of the manuscript. LJG was involved in the revision of the manuscript. Y-LC, AG, KR, MS and VV-M contributed to data collection and processing.

  • Funding The data presented in this paper were collected as part of the ‘Structured Health Intervention For Truckers (SHIFT)’ randomised controlled trial, which is funded by the NIHR Public Health Research Programme (reference: NIHR PHR 15/190/42). The research was also supported by the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Socia care.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.