From recovery to regulation: an attempt to reconceptualize 'recovery from work'.

The concept of 'recovery' (from work) has quickly gained in importance in the occupational health literature. However, we think that the conceptualization of 'recovery' needs some more attention. Although many authors acknowledge that 'recovery' refers to a 'process', the concept is often treated as a static construct. In this paper, we argue that recovery should be conceptualized as a dynamic construct related to changes in psychophysiological state of the person. We refer to two main theories that have provided a theoretical framework for research in this area: Meijman & Mulder's Effort-Recovery (E-R) model and Hobfoll's Conservation of Resources theory. In particular, the E-R model has been seminal in this area and stresses the element of changing psychophysiological states that has been used for reconceptualising 'recovery'. Various biological rhythms influence these changing psychophysiological states, and thus the level of energy (or effort) a person can mobilize or wants to mobilize. A distinction is made between 'physical fatigue' and 'mental fatigue' and its consequences for recovery. The discrepancy between 'actual state' and 'required state' has been suggested as the basis for 'recovery'. This emphasises that recovery is a dynamic and ongoing process, which also included motivational aspects, in particular as far as mental work is concerned. The capacity to maintain self-regulation of one's psychophysiological state is important in this respect. Thus, we propose that 'recovery' is the continuous process of harmonizing the 'actual state' with the state that is 'required' at that moment.

Sleep quantity, sleep difficulties and their perceived consequences in a representative sample of some 2000 British adults.

Sleep problems and sleep restriction are popular topics of discussion, but few representative data are available. We document Britain's sleep based on a nationally representative sample of 1997, 16-93 year olds, who participated in face-to-face interviews. Fifty-eight per cent of respondents reported sleep problems on one or more nights the previous week and 18% reported that the sleep they obtained was insufficient on the majority of nights. Sleep durations were longest in the youngest participants (16-24 years), who slept on average 1 h longer than the 7.04 (SD 1.55) sample average. Sleep duration showed no appreciable change beyond middle age. Men and women reported sleeping similar amounts but women reported more sleep problems. Men reported sleeping less when there were more children in their household. Workers (i.e. employees) reported sleeping less on workdays than on non-workdays, but those based at home and those not employed did not. Inability to switch off from work was related to sleep duration on non-workdays. Across all participants average sleep duration exhibited a non-monotonic association with quality of life (i.e. contribution of sleep to energy, satisfaction and success in work, home and leisure activities). Quality of life was positively associated with sleep duration, for durations up to 9 h, but negatively associated with quality of life beyond this. Comparison of our data with the US national sleep poll revealed that Britain sleeps as little or less, whereas a comparison with data reported 40 years ago revealed no statistically reliable reductions. Although we may not sleep less than four decades ago, when we report sleeping less we also tend to associate that lack of sleep with poor performance and quality of life.