Self-rostering and psychosocial work factors - a mixed methods intervention study.

This study aims at 1) examining the effect of self-rostering on emotional demands, quantitative demands, work pace, influence, social community at work, social support from leaders and colleagues, job satisfaction, and negative acts, 2) examining whether this effect was mediated through increased influence on the scheduling of working hours, and interpreting the results in light of the different implementation processes that emerged in the study and by including qualitative data. We conducted a 12 months follow-up, quasi-experimental study of self-rostering among 28 workplaces out of which 14 served as reference workplaces. We also interviewed 26 employees and 14 managers about their expectations of introducing self-rostering. In the present study implementation of self-rostering had a positive effect on job demands and the social environment of the workplace, especially if the intervention does not comprise drastic changes of the organisation of the employees' work and private life.

Work-life balance among shift workers: results from an intervention study about self-rostering.

PURPOSE: The aims of the study were to explore the effects of the implementation of IT-based tools for planning of rosters among shift workers on work-family-related outcomes and to interpret the results in light of the different implementation processes. METHODS: A quasi-experimental intervention study was conducted with 12-month follow-up at 14 intervention and 14 reference worksites in Denmark. Workplaces planning to introduce IT-supported self-rostering were recruited, and three different kinds of interventions were implemented. Intervention A and B aimed at increasing workers satisfaction and well-being, while intervention C was designed to optimize the personnel resources. Questionnaire data were collected from 840 employees at baseline and 784 at follow-up. Process evaluation encompassed interviews with about 25 employees and 15 managers at baseline and follow-up. Work-family-related outcomes were work-life conflicts, work-life facilitation, marital conflicts and time with children. RESULTS: An overall decline in work-family conflicts and increase in work-family facilitation were found in the total intervention group. More specifically, in group B, work-family conflicts and marital conflicts decreased while work-family facilitation increased. In group C, work-family conflicts increased while work-family facilitation and time spend with children decreased, and no significant changes were observed in the reference group and in group A. CONCLUSION: An overall positive effect of the implementation of self-rostering was found on the balance between work and private life. However, results from the process evaluation suggested that the organizational aim with the intervention was crucial for the effect.

How do employees prioritise when they schedule their own shifts?

We investigated how employees prioritised when they scheduled their own shifts and whether priorities depended on age, gender, educational level, cohabitation and health status. We used cross-sectional questionnaire data from the follow-up survey of an intervention study investigating the effect of self-scheduling (n = 317). Intervention group participants were asked about their priorities when scheduling their own shifts succeeded by 17 items covering family/private life, economy, job content, health and sleep. At least half of the participants reported that they were giving high priority to their family life, having consecutive time off, leisure-time activities, rest between shifts, sleep, regularity of their everyday life, health and that the work schedule balanced. Thus, employees consider both their own and the workplace's needs when they have the opportunity to schedule their own shifts. Age, gender, cohabitation and health status were all significantly associated with at least one of these priorities. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: Intervention studies report limited health effects of self-scheduling. Therefore, we investigated to what extent employees prioritise their health and recuperation when scheduling their own shifts. We found that employees not only consider both their health and family but also the workplace's needs when they schedule their own shifts.

Implementation of self-rostering (the PRIO-project): effects on working hours, recovery, and health.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to (i) investigate the consequences of self-rostering for working hours, recovery, and health, and (ii) elucidate the mechanisms through which recovery and health are affected. METHODS: Twenty eight workplaces were allocated to either an intervention or reference group. Intervention A encompassed the possibility to specify preferences for starting time and length of shift down to 15 minutes intervals. Interventions B and C included the opportunity to choose between a number of predefined duties. Questionnaires (N=840) on recovery and health and objective workplace reports of working hours (N=718) were obtained at baseline and 12 months later. The interaction term between intervention and time was tested in mixed models and multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) of having short [OR 4.8, 95 % confidence interval (95% CI) 1.9-12.3] and long (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.9-8.0) shifts increased in intervention A. Somatic symptoms (ß= -0.10, 95% CI -0.19- -0.02) and mental distress (ß= -0.13, 95% CI -0.23- -0.03) decreased, and sleep (ß= 1.7, 95% CI 0.04-0.30) improved in intervention B, and need for recovery was reduced in interventions A (ß= -0.17, 95% CI -0.29- -0.04) and B (ß= -0.17, 95% CI -0.27- -0.07). There were no effects on recovery and health in intervention C, and overall, there were no detrimental effects on recovery or health. The benefits of the intervention were not related to changes in working hours and did not differ by gender, age, family type, degree of employment, or working hour arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of self-rostering, employees changed shift length and timing but did not compromise most recommendations for acceptable shift work schedules. Positive consequences of self-rostering for recovery and health were observed, particularly in intervention B where worktime control increased but less extensively than intervention A. The effect could not be statistically explained by changes in actual working hours.