Influence of fatigue and overwork on the General morbidity of workers

Introduction. Production-related morbidity occurs as a result of nonspecific effects on the human body increased fatigue and overfatigue. However, there are no studies of the links between the General morbidity of workers with their acute fatigue and chronic fatigue.

The aim of the study was establishment of pattern of connection of acute fatigue with chronic fatigue and with the general morbidity of workers revealed at periodic medical examinations of workers.

Material and methods. Fatigue and fatigue were studied using a standardized questionnaire. As an integral assessment of fatigue we used two indicators “degree of usual fatigue” (F_sub) and the duration of the employee in a state of fatigue, hours per week (H_week). The H_week index considers the F_sub, frequency, time of occurrence and disappearance of fatigue, the duration of the working week. In research took part 1733 of different professions. 396 people underwent medical examination.

Results. Among the surveyed workers, 5% of women and 2% of men had severe fatigue (F_sub =3). We have shown that the total annual duration of morbidity with temporary disability in very tired workers (F_sub =3) is an average of 24.9 days, and a little tired (F_sub =1) an average of 5.1 days. 38% of women and 20% of men are at risk of fatigue (H_week >24 hours). The H_week indicator allows to differentiate the occupational risks associated with fatigue among workers with the same F_sub. At H_week >24 hours in men and women, all health indicators obtained from both the survey and the medical examination are worsened.

Conclusions. F_sub is the most simple, operational and reliable indicator for the etiological study of the risks of fatigue and the causes of professionally caused diseases. In women with F_sub =3, compared with non-tired workers (F_sub=0), the risks of health deterioration during the year are repeatedly increased, in moderately tired women (F_sub=2) there is also a significant increase in all risks, but to a lesser extent. H_week allows you to differentiate risks among workers with the same F_sub. With H_week more than 24 hours, there is a significant increase in health risks, detected both according to the survey and according to periodic medical examination. The leading cause of F_sub =3 is the share in working time of the periods of stay of workers in a state of increased attention and intensity of the labor process.

1. Izmerov N.F. Problems of professional risk assessment and management. Report at the all-Russian meeting on labor protection. April 28, 2010. http://www.myshared.ru/theme/prezentatsiya-po-ohrane-truda/6/ (in Russian).

2. Medical-physiological classification of works according to the severity. Methodical recommendation. NIItruda GK Soveta ministrov SSSR po trudu. M.;1974.

3. Lock A.M., Bonetti D.L., Campbell A.D.K. The psychological and physiological health effects of fatigue. Occup Med (Lond). 2018; 16 (68(8)): 502–11.

4. Petuhov B.N. et al. The ratio of objective and subjective indicators in assessing the functional state of a person in the workplace. Fiziologiya cheloveka. 1984;1: 72–80 (in Russian).

5. Sorokin G.A. Chronophysiological Study of Occupational Fatigue. Fiziologiya cheloveka. 2008; 6: 70–7. (in Russian).

6. Kinsman R.A. Weiser P.C. Subjective Symptomatology During Work and Fatigue. Psychological Aspects and Physiological Correlates of Work and Fatigue. Sprigfi eld; 1976.

7. Maintaining the efficiency of the floating composition of the Navy. М.: 1990 (in Russian).

8. Trakhtenberg I., Polyakov F. Essays on the physiology and health of the elderly. Kiev: «Avicenna»; 2007 (in Russian).

9. Keiji Fukuda K/ et al. The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Comprehensive Approach to Its Definition and Study. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121: 953–59.

10. Huibers M.J.H., Beurskens A.J., Prins J.B. Fatigue, burnout, and chronic fatigue syndrome among employees on sick leave: do attributions make the difference? Occup Environ Med. 2003; 60: i26–31.

11. Loriol M. A sociological stance on fatigue and tiredness: Social inequalities, norms and representations. Nevrophisiol Clin. 2017; 47 (2): 87–94.

12. Steven E. et al. Fatigue Risk Management in the Workplace. JOEM. 2012; 54 (2): 231–58.

13. Guidance Note for Fatigue Risk Management. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; 2013.

14. Fourie C. et al. Fatigue Risk Management Systems: A Review of the Literature. September 2010 London: Clockwork Research Ltd, Department for Transport. http://www.clockworkresearch.com/publications/2010b.

15. Fang J, Qiu C, Xu H, You G. A model for predicting acute and chronic fatigue in Chinese nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2013; 69(3): 546–58.

16. Kant I.J. et al. An epidemiological approach to study fatigue in the working population: the Maastricht Cohort Study. Occup Environ Med. 2003; 60 (I): i32 — i39.

17. Sorokin G.A. Integral assessment of psychosomatic symptoms of professional burnout and its prevention. Vestnic Roszdravnadzora. 2018. 1: 40–5 (in Russian).

18. Sorokin G.A. Integral assessment of subjective symptoms to identify chronic visual, motor and non-specific fatigue of workers. Med. truda i Prom. ekol. 1998; 11: 13–1. (in Russian).

19. Grebnijk V.P., Solonin Y.G., Pttuhov B.N. Physiological regulation of physical labor. Physiological regulation in the labour force. L., Nauka; 1988: 18–53.

20. Vernon H. M. The health and efficiency of munition workers. Oxford, London, 1940, 142p.

21. Sorokin G.A., Shilov V.V. Hygienic aspects of chronic professional fatigue and aging. Gigiena i sanitarija. 2017; 7: 627–31 (in Russian).

22. Sorokin G.A. et al. The dependence of the health of assembly workers on the degree of industrial fatigue. Gigiena i sanitarija. 1991; 3: 32–4 (in Russian).