Review Article

Industrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

How much advance notice do workers need?
A review and theoretical framework for determining
advance notice periods for unpredictable work
Madeline SPRAJCER1*, Sally A FERGUSON1 and Drew DAWSON1
1

Appleton Institute, Central Queensland University, Australia
Received July 27, 2022 and accepted March 12, 2023
Published online in J-STAGE March 21, 2023
DOI https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2022-0140

Abstract: Regulatory guidance materials for fatigue management typically advise that employees
be provided with days or weeks of advance notice of schedules/rosters. However, the scientificevidence underpinning this advice is unclear. A systematic search was performed on current peer
reviewed literature addressing advance notice periods, which found three relevant studies. A subsequent search of grey literature to determine the quality of evidence for the recommendation for advance notice periods returned 37 relevant documents. This review found that fatigue management
guidance materials frequently advocated advance notice for work shifts but did not provide empirical evidence to underpin the advice. Although it is logical to suggest that longer notice periods may
result in increased opportunities for pre-work preparations, improved sleep, and reduced worker
fatigue, the current guidance appears to be premised on this reasoning rather than empiricalevidence. Paradoxically, it is possible that advance notice could be counterproductive, as too much
may result in frequent alterations to the schedule, particularly where adjustments to start and end
times of the work period are not uncommon (e.g., road transport, rail). To assist organisations indetermining the appropriate amount of advance notice to provide, we propose a novel theoreticalframework to conceptualise advance notice.
Key words: Work scheduling, Sleep, Hours of work, Predictability, On-call

Introduction
Working time arrangements that involve unpredictable
scheduling of work shifts, including standby, on-callor agency-allocated work, are used in many industries,
including road and rail freight, emergency services, information technology, healthcare, and essential services1–4).
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: m.sprajcer@cqu.edu.au(Supplementary materials: refer to PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/journals/2597/)©2024 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

Unpredictability for the purpose of this paper refers toworking time arrangements where work can be allocated/scheduled or changed at short notice (i.e., with potentially
hours or a limited number of days’ advance notice). Unpredictable working arrangements may include on-call work
(e.g., emergency services or utilities)5), shift changes, or
any other arrangements where start times and work shifts
can be altered prior to commencement6). Typically, unpredictable working time arrangements are used to maximise
productivity by minimising ‘down time’, thereby ensuring
operational needs are met efficiently in environments with
unpredictable workloads2, 7). While such work schedules
carry obvious organisational benefits vis-à-vis operational

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd) License.
(CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

3

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
flexibility and cost, some authors have suggested that thisworking time arrangement has the potential to disrupt an
employee’s opportunity to engage in appropriate anticipatory sleep-wake behaviour and/or meet family and social
obligations 8, 9). This potential disruption results fromtime periods where work is possible, but not certain (i.e.,time spent on-call). As a result, various industries andregulatory bodies have promulgated fatigue management
regulations and guidance materials10–12) that recommend
maximising the amount of advance notice employees areprovided regarding future working times with the aim ofmanaging fatigue-related risk.
Fatigue risk management guidelines typically comprise
upper limits on a range of features associated with workrest rules. These documents generally include guiding
principles for roster dimensions including shift length(typically maximums of ~10–14 h), time of day (avoid
work between midnight and dawn), weekly maxima (e.g.
56h+ associated with higher likelihood of fatigue), among
others12). Some guidelines also include direction relating
to unpredictable working time arrangements. Strategies
include maximum duration of standby periods13), classification of on-call periods as part of ‘work time’ 14),and maximum hours post-call during standby periods15).
Importantly, many of the guidance materials accompanying regulatory regimes focus on stipulating minimum prework notice periods. Pre-work notice period guidelines
range from requiring a minimum of 14 d advance notice16)
to a minimum notice period of 24-h17). The amount ofadvance notice about the exact working time arrangements
given to workers is likely to be a significant contributing
factor as to whether work is considered ‘unpredictable’ ornot.
While an intuitively appealing idea, the provision of extended periods of advance notice is not well supported bya strong empirical evidence base. The aim of the current
review was to synthesise and evaluate the evidence-baseupon which current advance notice guidance is provided.
In this paper, we: conducted a search of peer reviewed
studies performed on the effect of advance notice periods
on worker fatigue; reviewed a selection of current fatigue
management guidance materials available across a range
of industries and regulatory regimes; critically assessed
the evidence base supporting these recommendations.
In addition to the review components of this paper, we
also present a novel theoretical framework with which toconceptualise the provision of advance notice for workers with unpredictable work schedules. This framework
is based on the aforementioned review components andcould be used to assist in determining an appropriate
amount of advance notice to provide a given degree ofcertainty of future work timing and work context. Furthermore, we suggest a future research strategy to support
evidence-based policy recommendations.

Methods
In line with our aims, this review was conducted in two
parts:
1) a systematic search of the peer reviewed literature, and2) a review of a selection of current industry guidancematerials.
The aim of the peer reviewed literature search was to
identify the available scientific evidence-base that could
be used to underpin fatigue management guidance materials for organisations that address advance notice periods.
The aim of the search of industry guidance materials was
slightly different, and as such was conducted separately.
The guidance material search was undertaken to identify
what fatigue management advice is currently provided fororganisations and industries where unpredictable or nonstandard working arrangements are used. Ideally, the advice provided within current guidance materials would bebased on the studies identified in the first search. Methods
are provided for both searches.
Peer reviewed literature search
DesignThis systematic search of the peer reviewed literature
was conducted in line with the PRISMA guidelines 18).
This review was not registered.
Eligibility criteria
To be included, studies were peer-reviewed, publishedin English, and presented original data (i.e., no review
articles, commentaries, etc.). No date range was used.
Studies were required to address organisational fatigue
management strategies for managing unpredictableworking arrangements. Specifically, studies had to assess
worker fatigue and/or sleep outcomes based on the amountof advance notice provided prior to shifts. Inclusion criteria aligned with the Population, Intervention, Comparator,
Outcome, Study design (PICOS) framework18).
Population: Workers who undertake shift work or othernon-standard working arrangements (e.g., on-call work).
All ages, genders, locations, industries, and other demographic characteristics were included.
Intervention: To be included, studies had to present a

4
direct comparison of outcomes based on the amount of advance notice provided to workers prior to work start times.
Comparison: No comparison group required.
Outcome: Outcomes must include fatigue or sleep.
Study design: All original study designs were included(i.e., no reviews, etc.).
Information sources
Four databases were searched to identify relevant peerreviewed literature (PubMed, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore
Digital Library, NIOSHTIC II). The search strategy also
included forwards and backwards citation tracking ofincluded articles.
Search strategy
The search strategy was based on a recent systematic
review in the area of fatigue management19). Search terms
can be seen in Table 1.
An example search string from the search of thePsychINFO database is as follows:(exp Fatigue/) AND ((“advance notice” or predictabil*).
mp. [mp=title, abstract, heading word, table of contents,
key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word])AND ((safety or productivity or health or performance or
incident or accident or near miss or sleep).mp. [mp=title,
abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts,
original title, tests & measures, mesh word])
Selection process
After searching, studies were exported to Covidence(v2654, Covidence Systematic Review Software, Melbourne, Victoria) and duplicates were removed. One
reviewer (MS) screened all identified studies at the title
and abstract level. Studies that progressed past the title
and abstract screening level had full text records retrieved,
which were then screened against the specified inclusion
criteria by MS.
Data items
All included studies had the following information
extracted: year of publication, industry, jurisdiction, population, amount of advance notice given to workers prior towork start time, sleep or fatigue outcomes, safety and/or
performance outcomes. Fatigue and sleep outcomes werecompared based on the amount of advance notice given
to worker populations to compare and evaluate the mostappropriate amount of advance notice, for future inclusion
within fatigue management guidance materials.

M SPRAJCER et al.
Table 1.

Search terms

Population
Fatigue

Intervention (OR)AND

Advance notice
Predictabl*

Outcome (OR)AND

SafetyProductivity
Performance
HealthIncident
Accident
Near miss
Sleep

Quality assessment
All included studies were evaluated using the Joanna
Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools20).
Guidance material search
DesignTo develop an understanding of the current information
provided by industry bodies on advance notice prior toshifts, a search was performed of current fatigue management guidance materials. This grey literature search was
conducted in line with published strategies21, 22). It was
not expected that all available guidance material fromevery jurisdiction worldwide would (or could) be sourced.
Rather, the aim of this search was to evaluate common
advice and regulation provided to industries that use unpredictable working arrangements.
Eligibility criteria
To be included, documents had to be English-language
guidance materials provided to organisations and/or industries that use non-standard working arrangements (e.g.,
shift work, on-call work, etc.). These guidance materials
had to include advice regarding the amount of advancenotice (or predictability) that should (or would ideally) be
provided to workers.
Information sources and search strategy
The search strategy was based on established strategies
for sourcing grey literature21, 22), and was based on specialist author knowledge of the area (i.e., fatigue management guidance materials). Some guidance materials weresourced from industry groups and associated webpages, inaddition to the authors’ existing libraries. Further, online
searches were performed using search terms such as“fatigue risk management guidance materials”, “fatigue
management guidance materials”, “fatigue management
guidelines”, along with countries and areas (e.g., “Europe”,
Industrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

5

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
“United States”, “Australia”, “Canada”, etc.). Google was
the primary search engine used. Reference lists of guidance documents were also used as a source for additional
materials. This search strategy was used as there is no current centralised repository for grey literature in the fatigue
management area (i.e., traditional search strategies did notyield useful sources).
Data items
Data extracted from guidance materials included author
organisation, country of origin, year of publication, title,
content, access source, included references (i.e., any
peer reviewed literature used to support guidance aroundadvance notice). The authors of the present review haveincluded a short description of the references included, toclarify what evidence is provided to support the provided
guidance.

Fig. 1.

Risk of bias and quality assessment
Given that this search was focused on grey literature, norisk of bias or quality assessment processes were possible
or appropriate.

Results
Peer reviewed literature search
A total of 1,162 records were returned by the search (Fig.
1). After duplicate removal, 1,005 records were screenedat the title and abstract level. Of these records, 889 were
excluded. The remaining 112 records were screened at thefull text level. The final screening resulted in 3 studies that
met the inclusion criteria.
While certain studies reviewed at the full textlevel would appear to meet the inclusion criteria at firstglance23–30), they did not evaluate sleep or fatigue outcomes based on the amount of prior notice provided toworkers, so were excluded.

PRISMA flowchart of returned records.

6
Study characteristics
All three included studies were undertaken by the same
research group located in the United States6, 31, 32). Survey
data was used by all three studies to investigate the sleep
outcomes of varying advance notice periods in retailand food service workers. One study31) compared sleep
outcomes in workers who either were (n=754) or were not(n=5,394) included in a novel work hour ordinance, while
the other two studies collected sleep and advance notice
period data from one group of workers (n=27,79232)) and(n=between 15,075 and 16,316 6)). All included studies
measured sleep using non-validated scales. Additional
study characteristics can be seen in Table 2.
Quality assessment
Quality assessment indicated that two of the included
studies were of moderate quality6, 32) and one was of highquality31), based on the criteria provided by the Joanna
Briggs Institute (Table 3).
Sleep and fatigue outcomes of advance notice periods
All studies indicated that greater advance notice periods were associated with improved sleep and fatigue
outcomes6, 31, 32). This included improved sleep quality,
reduced difficulty falling asleep, decreased sleep disturbance, and less fatigue upon waking6, 31, 32). More advancenotice was typically associated with a proportionate
increase in positive sleep outcomes6, 32). However, in one
study, no difference was seen in sleep quality when >1 wk
advance notice was provided, though ≤ 6 d’ notice wasassociated with poorer sleep quality32). Interestingly, when
an hours of work ordinance was introduced to increase notice periods to >2 wk, participants reported a 11% increasein sleep quality31). By comparison, workers who were notcovered by this ordinance did not report any change.
Guidance material searchThis section of the present review comprises a synthesis
and evaluation of the guidance provided by the included
documents regarding advance notice. A total of 37 documents providing fatigue management guidance were
included. Documents were from Australia (n=12), theUnited States (n=6), Canada (n=6), the United Kingdom(n=4), New Zealand (n=3), and international regulatory
bodies (n=6). The relevant information on advance notice
has been extracted, as have any relevant citations supporting their claim (Supplementary Table). Most included
guidelines and regulations do not provide detailed evidence to support the recommendation for extended periods

M SPRAJCER et al.
of advance notice.
The industry guidance materials included in this review
typically suggest that high levels of advance notice will
enable employees to better plan activities during non-work
periods, and thus should be provided wherever possible.
It is assumed that advanced notice will reduce fatiguerelated risk and the negative psycho-social sequelae of
unpredictable working time arrangements. Some guidancematerials mandate specific timeframes for advance notice.
For example, “if possible give drivers 24-h notice of [any]schedule change”17), or “post work schedules at least 14
d in advance”16). However, most guidance materials are
general (i.e., more is better) and do not prescribe what
constitutes ‘advance notice’ or ‘predictability’. That is, theprecise durations of advance notice required to mitigate
psycho-social or fatigue-related risk are generally notprovided. Some guidance materials simply state that there
is a need to “keep the timing of shifts predictable”12), that“long range predictability is a key aspect of fatigue mitigation”33) or, alternatively, that “irregular and unpredictable
hours” are associated with higher levels of fatigue-related
risk34). Other guidance materials describe how “planningas much of the actual hours of work as possible” is a key
fatigue management strategy35), that “rosters for shift andweekend work should be available with enough lead timeto permit planning for leisure activities and sleep recovery”36), or that “standby, reserve and on-call duties should
be scheduled with as much advance notice as possible,
and ideally in a predictable manner” 11). One guidance
document produced by a United States Air Force researchlaboratory described that “the shift worker who cannot accurately predict their work and free days will suffer frompoor morale and is more likely to quit the job than the shift
worker who can predict work and free days”37). While it
could be argued that it is difficult to provide precise advice
regarding ideal advance notice periods given the diversityof industries, organisations, and workgroups—the same
could be said for any other industrial hazard. However,for virtually all other hazards, a general invocation would
typically be considered inadequate (e.g., “try to minimise
alcohol intoxication”). A lack of clear guidance aroundadvance notice could thus be taken as indicative of a lackof consideration of fatigue as a hazard by many industries.
Furthermore, difficulty in developing specific advice does
not reduce the importance of providing such guidance.
Analysis of guidelines found in the search shows thatvery few published guidance materials provide citations
or references for advice regarding predictability/advancenotice (Table 4). Out of the 37 documents reviewed, justIndustrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

Workers employed by large retail andfood service firms

Seattle treatment group:
Individuals who reported working in
Seattle and whose employers were of
the size and type that would be coveredby the Secure Scheduling ordinance.
Comparison group:
Workers employed by the exact same
set of companies covered by the Seattle
law but employed in other large US
citiesRetail and food service workers
employed at 80 large companies.

UnitedStatesUnitedStatesUnitedStatesHarknett,
Schneider,and Wolfe(2020)

Harknett,
Schneider,and Irwin(2021)

Schneider andHarknett(2019)

Population

Jurisdiction

Characteristics of included peer reviewed studies

Authors
and year

Table 2.

11% increase in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ sleep quality for Seattle treatment groupwhen the Secure Scheduling ordinance was introduced.
No increase in sleep quality for comparison group.

Significantly poorer sleep when 0–2 or 3–6 d’ notice given, as compared with 2
wk or more (ref).
· 0.35 point decrease in sleep quality with 0–2 d’ notice*· 0.27 point decrease in sleep quality with 3–6 d’ notice*· 0.9 point decrease in sleep quality with 1–2 wk’ notice· More than 2 wk’ notice: ref

Percentage of respondents
who reported ‘good’ or‘very good’ sleep quality.

Sleep quality rated as very
good, good, fair, or poor
used to create a dichotomous
variable (very good andgood versus fair and poor).

Seattle treatmentgroup: >2 wk advancenoticeComparison group: <2
wk advance notice

Amount of advance notice given of schedule:· 0–2 d· 3–6 d· 1–2 wk
· 2 wk or more

Significantly better sleep quality with increased advance notice (p>0.05):• <1 wk notice: ref• 0.07 point increase in sleep quality with 1–2 wk notice• 0.07 point increase in sleep quality with 1–2 wk notice• 0.10 point increase in sleep quality with 2–3 wk notice• 0.14 point increase in sleep quality with 3–4 wk notice• 0.14 point increase in sleep quality with 4+ wk notice
Significantly less difficulty falling asleep with increased advance notice (p>0.05):• <1 wk notice: ref• 0.10 point decrease in difficulty falling asleep with 1–2 wk notice• 0.12 point decrease in difficulty falling asleep with 2–3 wk notice• 0.16 point decrease in difficulty falling asleep with 3–4 wk notice• 0.17 point decrease in difficulty falling asleep with 4+ wk notice
Significantly less sleep disturbance with increased advance notice (p>0.05):• <1 wk notice: ref• 0.09 point decrease in sleep disturbance with 1–2 wk notice• 0.09 point decrease in sleep disturbance with 2–3 wk notice• 0.14 point decrease in sleep disturbance with 3–4 wk notice• 0.17 point decrease in sleep disturbance with 4+ wk notice
Significantly less waking up feeling fatigued with increased advance notice(p>0.05):• <1 wk notice: ref• 0.08 point decrease fatigue with 1–2 wk notice• 0.14 point decrease in fatigue with 2–3 wk notice• 0.18 point decrease in fatigue with 3–4 wk notice• 0.17 point decrease in fatigue with 4+ wk notice

Sleep and/or fatigue outcomes

Four self-report questions.
“During the past month,
how would you rate yoursleep quality overall?”(1=poor, 4=very good)“During the past month,
how often did you havedifficulty falling asleep?”(1=never, 2=1–2 times
per month, 3=weekly,
4=multiple times per week,
5=every day)“During the past month,
how often did you wake up
repeatedly during sleep?”(1=never, 5=every day)“During the past month,
how often did you wakeup feeling exhausted/fatigued?”(1=never, 5=every day)Sleep and/or fatigue
measures“How far in advance
do you usually knowwhat days and hours
you will need to workat [EMPLOYERNAME]?”
Responses categorised
as “less than 1 wk,”
“1–2 wk,” “2–3 wk,”
“3–4 wk,” and “4 ormore wk”

Amount of advancenotice given to workers
prior to work start time

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?

78

M SPRAJCER et al.
Table 3.

JBI risk of bias assessment of cross-sectional studies
First author (Year)
Harknett, Schneider,and Wolfe (2020)

Harknett, Schneider,and Irwin (2021)

Schneider andHarknett (2019)

Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?

Y

Y

Y

Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?

Y

Y

Y

Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?

N

Y

N

Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?

N

N/A

N

Were confounding factors identified?

Y

Y

Y

Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?

Y

Y

Y

Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?

NN

Was appropriate statistical analysis used?

Y

Y

Y

62.5%

75.0%

62.5%

Score %Cut offs ≤49% “weak”, 50% to 70% “moderate”, and ≥71% “strong”. JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute.
Table 4.

Appropriate use of advance notice periods
Scenario

ExampleAppropriate to provide high levels of advance notice
When the likelihood of scheduling changes is low(80–90 % minimum scheduling accuracy).

Control room operators in the utilities industry who work scheduled shifts, with lastminute changes only to cover unplanned sick leave.

When schedules are provided with the understandingthat changes may be required on the day of operations.

Drivers (i.e., truck drivers or train engineers/drivers) who are informed that they will drive
specific routes regardless of any advances/delays to the day of operations schedule.

Where downtime at work is acceptable.

On-call fire fighters stationed in a firehouse, where downtime is acceptable due to theimmediate responsiveness required in the event of a call.

Not appropriate to provide high levels of advance notice
Where downtime is viewed as inefficiency.

Truck drivers and train engineers/drivers who are not required to remain at the station
if there is no work to perform.

When the person has to go to a previously unspecified
location to do the job.

Couriers who may be required to pick up/drop off items to various locations.

Where the likelihood of work occurring is uncertain.

Maintenance and technical support roles, including individuals who respond to faults in
information technology or utilities industries.

Volunteer fire fighters who have other employment and/or would otherwise be at home.

seven include any citations for their guidelines on advancenotice periods. While we understand that the ‘grey literature’ does not always claim to be evidence-based, somedocuments cite references in relation to predictability andadvance notice37–44). Additionally, readers generally expectthat guidance materials, even in the absence of citations,are evidence-based. However, many include reference
to other guidance documents that also lack evidence for
guidance about notice periods. In particular, in the guidelines provided by the Energy Institute (London)42) and theUnited States ASIS Foundation40), the citation provided isto the shift work scheduling document developed by theUnited States Air Force research laboratory37). Miller provides just one citation for the principle of predictability—abook entitled ‘The 24-h business: Maximising productivity through round the clock operations’, published by theAmerican Management Association45). The book statesthat shift predictability is found to be ‘a concern’ for many
workers but is not a peer-reviewed publication and does
not include any quantitative evidence to support advancenotice in scheduling. Specifically, Coleman states the following, (p. 95):
“Fourteen percent of all workers say that obtaining amore predictable schedule is their primary concern. Companies that schedule overtime at the last minute (either ondays off or by extensions of workdays) create a tremendous disruption to family and social life plans, which may
have been on the calendar for weeks. It’s one thing for aparent to tell a child that they cannot schedule a camping
trip this summer; it’s another matter to postpone or cancel
a planned trip one day before leaving because of a change
in work schedules”.
The statement appears to be the source of much of thecurrent guidance regarding advance notice. Coleman also
Industrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

9

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
describes several hypothetical scenarios and concludes
with the statement that “most problems of unpredictability can be solved or reduced with better schedules thatmatch the actual workload and the shift workers provide
improved self-regulating coverage” (p. 95). Critically, no
scientific evidence is provided to support this statement.
Further investigation of research into predictability andadvance notice has indicated that just one peer reviewed
publication prior to the Coleman book45) notes the impact
of “regularity” on worker outcomes. Knauth and Rutenfranz46) note that:“We are not aware of any controlled studies whichhave systematically compared the effects of regular andirregular shift systems. Nonetheless, we would expect
regularity to facilitate the planning of activities away fromwork. Since this is important for sleep, non-work roles andrecreation we favor regularity” (p. 362).
It is interesting to note that this 1982 paper remains uncited by all recent guideline materials, despite the conceptof favouring regularity remaining consistent. It is possible that the age of this paper may render it inaccessible
on current online databases. Importantly, however, thequalifying remark that regularity may be favoured despite
any controlled studies in the area, is not present in any

subsequent guidance materials. It is possible that a degreeof hermeneutic distortion has occurred in the publicationof books and guidance materials in the time since publication − slight changes within each iteration. This has created an orthodoxy that more advance notice/regularity is
better, without an evidentiary basis. Figure 2 illustrates the
progression from the original recommendations to now.
In addition to interconnectivity, guidance documents
largely cite other, non-scientific guidance documents39–41, 44),or otherwise inappropriate sources (e.g., sources that do
not provide evidence for the statements which they allegedly support). For example, the ACOEM GuidanceStatement38) in discussion of notice periods refers to aconference publication that, while including key information on an algorithm used to identify fatigue-related risk
within on-call operations47), does not assess the efficacy ofadvance notice. Citations such as this, while informative,
do not provide any scientific basis or underlying data on
which to base decisions regarding the impact of advancenotice periods. Furthermore, the citation provided by theAustralian Medical Association39) is for another guidance
document in the Australian medical field48), rather thanscientific literature. This guidance document for the medical field produced by the Royal Australasian College of

Fig. 2. Evolution of predictability recommendations. Dashed arrow indicates no direct citation, solid arrow
indicates citation of previous reference.

10Surgeons48) does not include any citations. Similarly, The
Canadian Standards Association41) cites a Transportation
Safety Board watchlist 49), which simply states “in thetransportation industry, crews often work long and irregular schedules—sometimes crossing multiple time zones orin challenging conditions—that are not always conducive
to proper restorative sleep” (p. 3) also with no supporting
citation.
Several guidance documents do include reference toacademic studies 35, 36, 50–52). However, in these cases,
scientific publications are not cited at specific locations
within the document but rather are presented within an
overall reference list. These reference lists are presented
within guidance materials not as supporting evidence for
specific elements of a guideline, but as general bibliographic source materials, or for further reading. A reviewof the relevant reference lists suggests that while many
components of fatigue risk management guidelines areevidence-based (e.g., shift length and timing), there is noevidence on which to base guidance on desirable pre-work
notice periods. This suggests that the current guidance,
while intuitively appealing, is not grounded in scientificevidence. Uncomfortable as it may be, the current orthodoxy (i.e., that a greater amount of notice is always preferable) may be unfounded and thus the question remains—
do workers actually use knowledge of their days off toprepare for an upcoming work schedule, and if so, howmuch advance notice is required to positively impact prework behaviour?

Discussion
Empirical support for advance notice
As can be seen from the findings of the systematic
search of peer reviewed literature, just three studies areavailable comparing sleep and fatigue outcomes based on
the amount of advance notice provided6, 31, 32). These studies indicated that self-reported sleep and fatigue improved
when more advance notice was given. This suggests that
greater notice periods may be effective in reducing worker
fatigue, and likely improving safety. However, all threestudies were undertaken in a sample of retail and foodservice workers, which may limit the applicability ofthese findings to other sectors. It is probable that certain
characteristics of this population (e.g., economic insecurity32)) may be strongly correlated with the unpredictable
nature of these working time arrangements, such that
increased advance notice periods are likely associated withincreased financial stability (as upcoming earnings are

M SPRAJCER et al.
known). However, when economic factors are excluded
from the question (e.g., for full time rail workers and otherprofessions who undertake on-call work under a salaried
agreement24)), the impact of advance notice is less clear.
Additionally, it did not appear that night shifts were standard for these populations, despite working non-standard
hours. Therefore, it is unclear what the interactive effect ofadvance notice periods and night shifts may be. Furthermore, advance notice was typically not the only provision
designed to improve workers’ ability to predict theirworking time arrangements in these studies, which further
obscures the impact of extended advance notice periods.
There are several other papers which, while not meetingthe criteria of our systematic search, can be used to support
our understanding of advance notice periods. Akerstedt
and Kecklund53) present findings on the aspects of working time arrangements that negatively impact non-day
workers. Short notice of a new work schedule, in this casefewer than 4 wk’ notice, was the most problematic work
schedule characteristic, based on self-reports. However,
sleep and fatigue were not impacted by notice periods. Instead, the finding that notice periods <1 month were a significant problem for workers related to ‘social difficulties’(i.e., planning future social/family activities), which theauthors also linked to a lack of control or influence overtime. The authors note that this negative impact presumably relates to ‘difficulty planning life and social contacts’(p. 323). However, this study did not differentiate between
notice periods of different length prior to work schedulingand was therefore not able to determine optimum notice
periods and/or preparatory behaviours associated withadvance notice. Similarly, another self-report study foundthat a higher frequency of short notice shift allocation (1–3
d in advance) resulted in poorer outcomes in nurses, ascompared with less frequent short notice periods. These
negative outcomes included higher rates of work/family
conflict, dissatisfaction, and amount of sick leave taken54).
While this study did not assess the relationship between
different notice period durations and participant outcomes,
these findings suggest that notice periods and certainty of
future work time are likely to impact work and personal
outcomes. Finally, one study in the rail industry found that
individuals in workgroups with variable start times (i.e.
less predictable) obtained fewer hours of sleep than thosewith regularly scheduled hours of work55). However, theamount of advance notice provided was not discussed.
Given the lack of clear evidence linking advance notice
periods with either anticipatory pre-work behaviours or
worker sleep/fatigue, it appears that current guidanceIndustrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
materials are limited in their evidentiary basis. This is also
apparent from our review of the guidance materials themselves, which revealed few recommendations are based on
clear academic evidence. While it may make logical sensethat greater notice periods would result in a greater likelihood of pre-work preparations, improved sleep, and/or
reduced worker fatigue, it is apparent that relevant fatigue
management guidance is based simply on this logic—
rather than scientific evidence.
Advance notice and certainty—are they the same?
Fatigue management guidance materials that include advice on advance notice refer to an implicit relationship—
more advance notice is associated with a greater degree ofcertainty, and certainty will result in workers performing
appropriate anticipatory behaviours (e.g., planning of
sleep/wake times, social activities, etc.). The assumption isthat direct causal relationships exist between each factor.
The implicit relationship is graphically represented in Fig.
3.
The concept of ‘certainty’ in the context of work
scheduling is complex. While it may be relatively straightforward to conceptualise certainty as a distinct constructin the context of advance notice periods, determining its
exact nature is more challenging. Recent research has
explored the related concepts of ‘schedule anticipation’and ‘predictability’ in the context of advance notice periods56). Lambert and colleagues56) employed a measureof schedule anticipation that asked workers the degree
to which they agreed with the statement ‘you can easily
anticipate what days and times you’ll be working week toweek’. While the experience of anticipation is importantto understand from the worker perspective, this subjective
measure does not capture the probability that future work
start and finish times align with a planned schedule, nordoes it capture the magnitude of schedule instability. It
may therefore be appropriate to conceptualise certainty
as a measure of probability—the probability of a specificfuture shift occurring at the scheduled time. Furthermore,changes to work schedules could be evaluated based on
the magnitude of the change, where substantial changes
could be considered in comparison to trivial changes. For
the purpose of this review, we will conceptualise ‘certainty’as the probability that a planned work shift will be undertaken at the scheduled time.
The current orthodoxy, that certainty of future work
time is necessary for employees to plan pre-work activities, assumes that advance notice is the same as certainty
of future work time. If we are to assume that certainty

11

Fig. 3. Implicit relationship between advance notice, certainty, andanticipatory behaviours typically described in guidance materials.

results in appropriate anticipatory behaviours (discussed
in detail below), then certainty would ideally be improvedby working time guidelines. The requirement for advancenotice may belie a key linguistic and operational flaw.
We must also distinguish between the concept of certainty of future work time and existing models, such as
the job demands-resources57) and the job demand-control(-support)58) models. The term ‘job control’ refers to theamount of control an individual feels they have over theirwork tasks and work activity58). Evidence suggests that
greater job control is associated with improved wellbeing,
improved physical and/or mental health, and other positive
outcomes59). While these positive outcomes are associatedwith increased control over one’s work (and presumably
one’s working time), the critical difference between job
control and advance notice (and certainty—as discussed
above), is that advance notice specifically refers to thenotice period (i.e., hours or days) that an individual has—rather than the degree of control that individual has overtheir hours of work (or work tasks).
A new theoretical framework
Based on a differentiation between advance notice andcertainty, we propose an alternative framework for the
management of unpredictable working time arrangements
within the fatigue management context. Within this framework, we propose that it is certainty, rather than advancenotice, which should be managed and ideally improved.
We also consider the relationship between advance noticeand certainty under different conditions.
Figure 4 presents graphical representations of a seriesof possible working time arrangements. Each panel within
the figure has axes denoting certainty (y axis) and amountof advance notice (x axis). Each function represents thedegree of certainty in future work times based on theamount of advance notice that is provided. For example, alarge amount of advance notice (2 wk) may be associatedwith either a high or low degree of certainty. High levelsof certainty would occur when the worker is certain that
their future work times will be static, whereas low certainty reflects the potential for work times to change (basedon on-call periods, scheduling updates, etc.).

12

M SPRAJCER et al.

Fig. 4. Theoretical relationship between certainty of work time and advance notice for differing working arrangements. Eachpanel represents a different working time arrangement. Axes denote certainty (y axes) and amount of advance notice (x axes).
Functions represent certainty of future work time based on the amount of advance notice provided. Solid black lines represent
scheduled day work, solid grey lines represent responsive on-call, and broken grey lines represent no work scheduling occurring.

In Fig. 4, panel A, we can see that certainty of future
work time is associated with the amount of advance noticethat is provided in a variable on-call environment. Less advance notice is likely to be associated with a higher degreeof certainty of future work times. That is, if an employee
were to receive a call to attend to a job with no notice(denoted by the asterisk in Fig. 4, panel A), they would
have a very high degree of certainty that they would becommencing work at that time. One example of this may
be in an emergency situation—if a volunteer firefighter
were to receive a call to attend to a bush fire, they would
be extremely certain that the work would commence as
Industrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

13

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
soon as they could make it to the scene.
Conversely, a greater amount of advance notice may be
associated with less certainty of future work time. While aworker may be told via a rostering system that they would
be working at a certain time on a future date, the closer
that date is, the more certainty they can have about theirwork time. For example, the volunteer fire fighter may
have a scheduled burn planned a week in advance. Whilethey have some awareness of their potential shift start timeon that date, it is possible in the summer months that a
number of factors could impact this work time (e.g., a firestarts in their local area, etc.). Therefore, while a high levelof advance notice may give the illusion of providing priorplanning capacity, the worker is far less certain of their
future work schedule than had less notice been provided.
This scenario is denoted in Fig. 4, panel A by the square.
In considering the relationship between advance noticeand certainty, we must consider a variety of different
working arrangements. In particular, it is likely that therelationship between certainty and advance notice will differ between industries and different organisations or evenwork groups. In many industries, scheduled work time
does not include any on-call or unpredictable components(shift work or standard work). As such, predictability ishigh for all planned shifts, regardless of the amount ofadvance notice, and it would be rare for schedules to bemade without at least 1−2 wk of notice. This can be seenin panel B of Fig. 4. Conversely, some roles do not include
any scheduled work time, and operate on a responsive
on-call basis (i.e., work only occurs following unplanned
calls). As such, there would be little capacity for certainty
prior to a given day, but a high level of certainty after
being called (Fig. 4, panel C). Another possible working arrangement is the use of planned schedules that are
refined on the day of operations. This is often seen in therail industry, where drivers are scheduled to specific trains,which may depart up to two hours earlier/later than expected on any given day. These individuals therefore havea moderate level of certainty prior to the day of operations(they know they will be driving a specific train on thatday), but there is a four-hour potential window for theirstart time (Fig. 4, panel D). Figure 4, panel E demonstrates
the theoretical certainty of a worker who performs scheduled day shifts (high certainty, no short notice) in addition
to overnight responsive on-call (low certainty until thenight of operations).
Based on this theoretical conceptualisation, we canconsider specific workgroups and industries that are likely
to have significantly different relationships between cer-tainty and advance notice. Operators must consider how
much certainty could be reasonably expected based on theamount of advance notice that is provided (or desired).
If there is a low certainty associated with high levels ofadvance notice, the advance notice may have the opposite
effect than what is desired. That is, greater advance notice
may be associated with reduced certainty. For example, a
notice period of two weeks may be helpful in a situation
where there is a high degree of certainty. However, if theindividual’s work schedule were to change two days inadvance of their shift, this would indicate a) a low degreeof certainty for the longer notice period, and b) a higher
degree of certainty for the shorter notice period. In thiscase, we may consider whether it is better for the worker
to avoid the longer period of uncertainty, and only bepresented with the shorter notice period—and a higher
degree of certainty. However, the acceptable degree ofcertainty may differ between individuals and workplaces.
See Table 4 for an overview of industrial and operational
requirements that may impact the appropriateness of longadvance notice periods.
A case study in Australian and North American rail
To illustrate the challenge of providing fatigue management guidelines for unpredictable working arrangements,
we will use the rail industry as an example. Passenger
and freight train schedules in Australia are often highly
scheduled. That is, the organisations know when trains arescheduled to depart/arrive and can plan worker shifts accordingly. However, trains are delayed on a semi-frequentbasis for many rail depots60). A delay can result in alteredshift times for workers, often with little or no notice and a
degree of uncertainty. This stands in opposition to the rail
industry in North America. Most freight train operationsin North America are unscheduled and operate via a board
or pool model24). This model includes a rotating ‘board’ of
drivers/engineers1, where the individual at the top of theboard is allocated the next train to arrive. Similarly, there
is a ‘board’ of trains where the next scheduled train is at
the top. Drivers/engineers progress toward the top of theirboard as drivers and trains are ‘paired’ (Fig. 5). This model
typically gives workers a minimum 2 h formal warning
prior to shift start time, giving a high degree of certainty
with a short notice period—within already scheduled ‘on’days. The board model has been described as resulting in“duty-rest schedules [being] irregular and unpredictable,
which makes sleep planning very difficult”38).
1‘Driver’ is the standard term in Australia, while ‘engineer’ is the preferred term in North America.

14

M SPRAJCER et al.

Fig. 5. The board model of train and engineer allocation. Trains and engineers
are allocated to a ‘board’ where the engineer and train at the top of each board
are allocated to one another. The trip is performed, and each engineer and train
returns to the bottom of the board. As other engineers and trains are allocated tojobs, they then progress back to the top of the board for another allocation.

If we are to assume that a greater amount of prior notice
results in better outcomes, it would stand to reason thatscheduled rail operations would be preferred. However,when scheduled trains are delayed in the Australian model,
notice periods are often shorter than in the North American model (i.e., <2 h). Furthermore, an entire workgroup’s
roster may be impacted by delays. This is particularly
relevant where fatigue management systems are highly
regulated, as they are in the Australian rail industry61). Fatigue management systems in the Australian rail sector require certain breaks between shifts (e.g., “the 10-h rule”),
which can result in significant flow-on effects for workers
or workgroups. The board system in the North Americanmodel, can easily adapt to scheduling changes. However,there is the possibility for seniority to take precedence for‘desirable’ shifts, rather than the board. Under rail regulations in the United States this is described as a seniority
move 62) , and can be a form of delegation. Anecdotalreports indicate that in some workgroups, certain workers
will allocate out undesirable jobs to others, waiting at the
top of the board for preferred routes or jobs.

Conversely, many rail workers in North America object
to these short (though certain) notice periods—as they may
be unable to plan their pre-work preparatory behaviours appropriately and may experience a high level of stress63, 64),
anxiety65), and/or fatigue63, 66) due to being on-call overextended periods of time. The potential problems associated with this working time arrangement are reflectedin the recent United States industrial disputes regarding
current rail scheduling policies. For example, the use of‘precision scheduled railroading’ has been used in certain
areas of North America to attempt to increase certaintyof train schedules. Unfortunately, many workers reportthat this type of scheduling has resulted in a reduction in
employee numbers, and as a result, an increase in schedulevariability and/or fatigue67).
Both the North American and Australian models
present potential problems in terms of advance notice
periods. The Australian model may have more notice,which would be preferred under most fatigue risk management system guidelines, but also has a lower level ofcertainty. Conversely, the North American model has little
Industrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?

15

advance notice, but high degree of certainty. See Fig. 6
for a graphical representation of the advance notice andcertainty associated with these models. We propose an approach that considers both advance notice periods and theassociated certainty: finding the middle ground between
these approaches that may give drivers on the board model
more notice and reduce the uncertainty of scheduled railworking time.
How does certainty impact anticipatory behaviours?
In considering the implicit relationship described in Fig.
2 (advance notice → certainty → anticipatory behaviours),
it is important also to understand how certainty impacts
anticipatory behaviours. To our knowledge, no researchhas been performed on this relationship. However, it islogical to assume greater certainty is associated with theopportunity to perform anticipatory behaviours. That is,if future work times are known, workers could perform
anticipatory behaviours. However, we do not know 1)
whether workers do perform anticipatory behaviours whencertain of future work times, 2) what type of anticipatory behaviours occur (or are most likely), or 3) whether
anticipatory behaviours result in improved outcomes (e.g.,a lower likelihood of fatigue). Additionally, we do notcurrently understand the impact of certainty/uncertainty on
family/social disruption, though this is outside the scopeof the current review.
The type of anticipatory behaviours performed when
workers are certain of future work times may include preplanning sleep/wake times, social activities, and otherpersonal responsibilities. However, little is known about
specific behaviours. For example, while it is logical to assume that workers may alter their sleep based on certainty/
uncertainty, we do not currently know what changes are
made. It is possible that a greedy heuristic would be inplay when workers are uncertain of future work times,
with workers obtaining as much sleep as is possible, assoon as possible. It may be fair to hypothesise that whencertain, workers take prophylactic naps or adjust their
bed or wake times, rather than relying on this heuristic.
However, there is little evidence to support this notion atpresent. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest thatthese behaviour changes are effective. That is, we do notknow if anticipatory behaviours result in lower likelihoodof fatigue. We also do not know whether anticipatory behaviours are helpful (or harmful) in other areas—such as
personal/family life, or the management of other responsibilities. Not only this, but we do not yet understand thedifferential impact of certainty on anticipatory behaviours

Fig. 6. Advance notice and certainty of work time within Australianand North American rail models. The solid black line representing
the North American board model indicates that scheduling is done
within 24 h of work start times, and as such has a high degree ofcertainty. Conversely, the grey line representing the Australianmodel indicates that as there is the potential for shift change (due todelays, etc.) up until the shift start time, certainty increases as time
to shift decreases.

within groups of workers, including between industries,
workgroups, and based on demographics (e.g., gender) or
individual differences. As a result, we propose that future
research aim to understand how certainty impacts anticipatory behaviours—including both strategies and efficacy.
Recommendations for future guidance materials
Until fatigue management guidelines can be developed
based on a scientific understanding of the relationshipbetween certainty of future work time and anticipatory
behaviours, we suggest the following interim principles:
Until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, organisations should try to provide as much certainty as possible,
while also providing the maximum possible advancenotice period. Organisations should use roster data to
determine the likelihood that planned shifts will be alteredbased on the amount of notice that is provided. Using the‘Goldilocks’ principle68), a ‘sweet spot’ could be identified, where advance notice is maximised, while ensuringthat workers have a high level of certainty.
Remove blanket mandatory advance notice periods
from industry fatigue management guidance materials insituations where advance notice is associated with a low
level of certainty. Guidelines that require high levels of

16advance notice may have the unintended consequence of
reducing certainty (Fig. 4, panel A). Frequent uncertainty
surrounding work hours is likely to reduce employee confidence in standard schedules, which may then decreaseplanning capacity of the individual employee (including
planning sleep periods— “why should I sleep now, when I
know my scheduled shift is probably going to change”).
Organisations should be vigilant in monitoring andevaluating working arrangements with unpredictablecomponents. This will ensure that organisations are awareof employee and contractor work hours (in Australia, thisaligns with minimum legislative obligations) 69). These
data can be used to determine certainty based on advanced
notice, and to monitor any changes to scheduling predictability.
We propose the use of real time technological solutions
to monitor scheduling requirements. For example, North
American rail operators using the board model may opt
to update rail operations data in real time on an employee
portal, to maximise driver awareness of operations. This
would improve the degree of certainty and advance notice
drivers have.
Where a high level of certainty is not possible, fatiguerelated risk should be managed in line with the principles
of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS). FRMS
is a risk-based approach to fatigue management, where
periods of work that may result in a higher likelihoodof fatigue can be dynamically assessed, so appropriate
control measures can be implemented70, 71). For example,
industries that use standard shifts, such as Australian rail,
could adopt a dynamic fatigue risk assessment process
in response to any last-minute schedule changes. Thatis, assessing the likelihood of fatigue, and the potential
consequences of a fatigue-related error whenever a worker
is required to commence unplanned work. This approach
would not only address the safety and performance ofworkers but would minimise the need for extended notice
periods prior to schedule changes.
Where to from here?
While it is logical to assume that longer advance notice
periods may be associated with a greater capacity forworkers to plan sleep and other non-work activities (potentially reducing fatigue), there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting current fatigue management guidance.
We therefore propose a research agenda focusing on therole of advance warning and certainty of future work times
on pre-work time management, sleep, and subsequent
fatigue. This is supported by the proposition by Åkerstedt

M SPRAJCER et al.
and Kecklund53) that future research should include experimental control of notice periods to determine acceptability—from both a fatigue and social perspective. We suggestthat this should also include the impact of systems of work
on differing levels of advance notice and certainty (i.e., indifferent industries and workgroups). Additionally, future
research is needed to understand the relationship between
certainty and anticipatory behaviours. We recommend that
this should include different types of anticipatory behaviours and their efficacy—to ensure that future guidelines
promote positive worker outcomes. Furthermore, industry
groups and individual workplaces should develop guidance materials that consider the optimum convergence ofadvance notice and certainty of future work time, rather
than including one-size-fits-all advance warning requirements.
Limitations
There are several limitations of the current review thatmust be noted. While every effort was made to identify
available peer reviewed studies addressing advance noticeprior to shifts, it is possible that as in any review, somestudies were missed. Furthermore, a traditional systematic
search of current guidance materials was not possible,
due to the lack of a repository for fatigue management
regulatory and guidance documents. As such, it is possible(and indeed likely) that additional guidance materials(particularly those used within organisations and not madepublicly available) were not included in the current review. However, the available guidance materials presented
a highly consistent view, suggesting that saturation wasreached (Supplementary Table).
A note on the practicality of advance notice periods
This review has identified that the current advice provided regarding notice periods (i.e., that more notice isbetter under all circumstances) is not based on a strong
body of evidence. As such, we cannot definitively determine whether longer advance notice periods are ‘better’(i.e., result in increased preparatory behaviours, increased
pre-work sleep, improved work performance, etc.).
However, we must note that under some circumstances,
extended notice periods may be impractical. For example,
under emergency circumstances in some industries (e.g.,
utilities, healthcare), extended advance notice may not
be possible (and as such would fit into the ‘short advancenotice/high certainty’ category of the proposed theoreticalmodel—Fig. 4, Panel C). Importantly, the aim of the current review is not to state that all industries must provide
Industrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
extended advance notice periods. Quite the opposite—it isclear from the lack of literature in the area that we simply
do not know what the optimum level of advance notice isat this time.
Conclusion
The current review of both the peer reviewed literature and current industry guidance materials addressing
advance notice periods suggests that while it is a widely
held belief that more advance notice is better from afatigue management standpoint, there is limited scientificevidence underpinning this claim. It appears that much of
the regulatory guidance materials developed for industry,
while making intuitive sense, are not yet based on scientific evidence. We therefore propose a theoretical model toaddress both advance notice and certainty of work time—to help organisations and industries to conceptualise theirworking time arrangements. This framework can be used
as a first step in identifying what an appropriate amountof prior notice may be. However, future research is necessary to understand the impact of differing advance notice
periods on worker outcomes—including preparatory
behaviours, sleep, fatigue, and safety.

Conflict of Interest
None.

References
1) Ferguson SA, Paterson JL, Hall SJ, Jay SM, Aisbett B(2016) On-call work: to sleep or not to sleep? It depends.
Chronobiol Int 33, 678–84.
2) McCrate E (2018) Unstable and on-call work schedules
in the United States and Canada. International Labour
Organization, Geneva.
3) Nicol AM, Botterill JS (2004) On-call work and health: areview. Environ Health 3, 15.
4) O’Sullivan M, Lavelle J, McMahon J, Ryan L, Murphy C,
Turner T, Gunnigle P (2019) Zero hours and on-call workin Anglo-Saxon countries, Springer, Singapore.
5) Kovac K, Vincent GE, Jay SM, Sprajcer M, Aisbett B,
Lack L, Ferguson SA (2020) The impact of anticipating a
stressful task on sleep inertia when on-call. Appl Ergon 82,
102942.
6) Harknett K, Schneider D, Wolfe R (2020) Losing sleep overwork scheduling? The relationship between work schedules
and sleep quality for service sector workers. SSM Popul
Health 12, 100681.
7) Burri S, Heeger-Hertter S, Rossetti S (2018) On-call workin the Netherlands: Trends, impact, and policy solutions.

17International Labour Organization, Geneva.
8) Jay SM, Paterson JL, Aisbett B, Ferguson SA (2018) No
rest for the women: understanding the impact of on-callwork for women in the emergency services. Chronobiol Int
35, 827–37.
9) Imbernon E, Warret G, Roitg C, Chastang JF, Goldberg M(1993) Effects on health and social well-being of on-callshifts. An epidemiologic in the French National Electricity
and gas supply company. J Occup Med 35, 1131–7.
10) Transport Canada (2011) Work/rest rules for railway
operating employees.
11) International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) (2016)
Doc 9966: manual for the oversight of fatigue management
approaches.
12) SafeWork Australia (2013) Guide for managing the risk offatigue at work.
13) Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2020) CAAP 48–01 v3.2:
Fatigue management for flight crew members.
14) European Commission (2011) European Working Time
Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC).
15) Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2017) Exemption—part 48
of civil aviation orders (Express Freighters Australia).
16) Seattle Office of Labor Standards (2017) Secure schedulingordinance. SMC 14, 22.
17) New Zealand Transport Agency (2010) Preventing fatigue
in the commercial road transport industry: a good practiceguide.
18) Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC,
Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan
SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A,
Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald
S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC,
Welch VA, Whiting P, McKenzie JE (2021) PRISMA
2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance andexemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372,
n160.
19) Sprajcer M, Thomas MJW, Sargent C, Crowther ME,
Boivin DB, Wong IS, Smiley A, Dawson D (2022) How
effective are Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS)?
A review. Accid Anal Prev 165, 106398.
20) Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.
global/critical-appraisal-tools.
21) Benzies KM, Premji S, Hayden KA, Serrett K (2006) Stateof-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges ofincluding grey literature. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 3,
55–61.
22) Godin K, Stapleton J, Kirkpatrick SI, Hanning RM,
Leatherdale ST (2015) Applying systematic review searchmethods to the grey literature: a case study examining
guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada.
Syst Rev 4, 138.
23) Mai QD, Jacobs AW, Schieman S (2019) Precarious sleep?
Nonstandard work, gender, and sleep disturbance in 31
European countries. Soc Sci Med 237, 112424.
24) Pilcher JJ, Coplen MK (2000) Work/rest cycles in railroad

18

25)

26)

27)

28)

29)

30)

31)

32)

33)
34)
35)
36)

37)

38)

39)

40)
41)

42)

M SPRAJCER et al.
operations: effects of shorter than 24-h shift work schedules
and on-call schedules on sleep. Ergonomics 43, 573–88.
Dugan AG, Decker RE, Zhang Y, Lombardi CM, Garza JL,
Laguerre RA, Suleiman AO, Namazi S, Cavallari JM (2022)
Precarious work schedules and sleep: a study of unionizedfull-time wworkers. Occup Health Sci 6, 247–77.
Gregory K, Hobbs A, Parke B, Bathurst N, Pradhan S,
Flynn-Evans E (2020) An evaluation of fatigue factors
in maritime pilot work scheduling. Chronobiol Int 37,
1495–501.
Tait JL, Chambers TP, Tait RS, Main LC (2021) Impact
of shift work on sleep and fatigue in maritime pilots.
Ergonomics 64, 856–68.
Simões MRL, Souza C, Alcantara MA, Assunção AÁ (2019)
Precarious working conditions and health of metropolitan
bus drivers and conductors in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Am J
Ind Med 62, 996–1006.
Ziebertz CM, Beckers DG, van Hooff ML, Ruiters A,
Kompier MA, Geurts SA (2020) Characteristics andexperiences of off-site on-call work in relation to fatigue
and sleep. Gedrag Organ 33, 69–89.
Cavallari JM, Garza JL, Ferguson JM, Laguerre RA,
Decker RE, Suleiman AO, Dugan AG (2021) Working time
characteristics and mental health among corrections andtransportation workers. Ann Work Expo Health 65, 432–45.
Harknett K, Schneider D, Irwin V (2021) Improving
health and economic security by reducing work schedule
uncertainty. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118, e2107828118.
Schneider D, Harknett K (2019) Consequences of routine
work-schedule instability for worker health and well-being.
Am Sociol Rev 84, 82–114.
Nuclear Energy Institute (2008) Managing personnel
fatigue at nuclear power reactor sites.
Commission for Occupational Safety and Health (2006)
Code of practice: working hours.
Transport Canada (2007) Developing and implementing afatigue risk management system.
Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists(ANZCA) (2019) Guideline on fatigue risk management inanaesthesia practice.
Miller J (2006) Fundamentals of shiftwork scheduling.
Publication AFRL-HE-BR-TR-2006–0011. In: Laboratory
UAFR (Ed.), Brooks City-Base, Texas.
American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (2012) ACOEM guidance statement: fatigue risk
management in the workplace.
Australian Medical Association (2016) National codeof practice—hours of work, shiftwork and rostering for
hospital doctors.
ASIS Foundation (2010) Fatigue effects andcountermeasures in 24/7 security operations.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2019) Standards
research. Workplace fatigue: current landscape and future
considerations.
Energy Institute (2014) Managing fatigue using a Fatigue

Risk Management Plan (FRMP).
43) Tucker P, Folkard S (2012) Working time, health andsafety: a research synthesis paper. International Labour
Office.
44) National Transport Commission (2012) Rail safety national
law: fatigue risk management—hours of work and rest draft
regulatory impact statement.
45) Coleman R (1995) The 24-hour business: Maximizing
productivity through round-the-clock operations, American
Management Association, New York.
46) Knauth P, Rutenfranz J (1982) Development of criteria forthe design of shiftwork systems. J Hum Ergol (Tokyo) 11
Suppl, 337–67.
47) Moore-Ede M, Miller M, Trutschel U, Guttkuhn R, Aguirre
A, Fassler I (2009) Relationship between marine pilot
complement and pilot fatigue risk during tanker vessel
movements: optimizing staffing efficiency and safety.
Boston: International Conference on Fatigue Managementin Transportation.
48) Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (2007) Standards
for Safe working hours and conditions for Fellows andsurgical trainees and International medical graduates.
49) Transportation Safety Board of Canada (2018) Watchlist:
key safety issues in Canada’s transportation system.
50) Office of Rail Regulation (2012) Managing rail staff fatigue51) Health and Safety Executive (2006) Managing shiftwork:
health and safety guidance.
52) International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and theInternational Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations(IFALPA) (2018) Guidance material for development ofprescriptive fatigue management regulations.
53) Åkerstedt T, Kecklund G (2017) What work schedulecharacteristics constitute a problem to the individual? A
representative study of Swedish shift workers. Appl Ergon
59 Pt A, 320–5.
54) Estryn-Béhar M, Van der Heijden BI, NEXT Study Group(2012) Effects of extended work shifts on employee fatigue,
health, satisfaction, work/family balance, and patient safety.
Work 41 Suppl 1, 4283–90.
55) Raslear TG, Gertler J, DiFiore A (2013) Work schedules,
sleep, fatigue, and accidents in the US railroad industry.
Fatigue 1, 99–115.
56) Lambert SJ, Henly JR, Schoeny M, Jarpe M (2019)
Increasing schedule predictability in hourly jobs: resultsfrom a randomized experiment in a US retail firm. Work
Occup 46, 176–226.
57) Taris TW, Schaufeli WB (2015) The job demands‐resources
model. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology
of occupational safety and workplace health, 155–80.
58) Häusser JA, Mojzisch A, Niesel M, Schulz-Hardt S (2010)
Ten years on: a review of recent research on the Job
Demand–Control (-Support) model and psychological wellbeing. Work Stress 24, 1–35.
59) Van Der Doef M, Maes S (1999) The job demand-control(-support) model and psychological well-being: a review ofIndustrial Health 2024, 62, 2–19

19

HOW MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE DO WORKERS NEED?
20 years of empirical research. Work Stress 13, 87–114.
60) Miandoab MH, Ghezavati V, Mohammaditabar D (2020)
Developing a simultaneous scheduling of passenger
and freight trains for an inter-city railway considering
optimization of carbon emissions and waiting times. J
Clean Prod 248, 119303.
61) Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (2019)
Guideline: safety management system.
62) United States Federal Regulation (2020) Title 49:
Transportation. PART 228—passenger train employee
hours of service, recordkeeping and reporting, sleeping
quarters.
63) Perrin SL, Jay SM, Vincent GE, Sprajcer M, Lack L,
Ferguson SA, Vakulin A (2019) Waking qEEG to assess
psychophysiological stress and alertness during simulated
on-call conditions. Int J Psychophysiol 141, 93–100.
64) Vincent GE, Jay SM, Preece H, Hall SJ, Aisbett B, Baumert
M, Sprajcer M, Lack L, Ferguson SA (2019) Overnight
heart rate variability and next day cortisol response during
simulated on-call conditions. Psychoneuroendocrinology
109, 104406.
65) Sprajcer M, Jay SM, Vincent GE, Zhou X, Vakulin A,

66)

67)
68)

69)
70)

71)

Lack L, Ferguson SA (2020) Are individuals with low
trait anxiety better suited to on-call work? Clocks Sleep 2,473–86.
Sprajcer M, Vincent GE, Jay SM, Vakulin A, Lack
L, Ferguson SA (2021) Perception versus reality: therelationship between subjective and objective measures of
sleep when on-call under simulated laboratory conditions.
Behav Sleep Med 19, 533–46.
United States Government Accountability Office (2022)
Information on precision—scheduled railroading.
Straker L, Mathiassen SE, Holtermann A (2018) The‘Goldilocks Principle’: designing physical activity at work
to be ‘just right’ for promoting health. Br J Sports Med 52,
818–9.
Work Health and Safety Act (2011) Australia.
Gander P, Hartley L, Powell D, Cabon P, Hitchcock E,
Mills A, Popkin S (2011) Fatigue risk management:
Organizational factors at the regulatory and industry/company level. Accid Anal Prev 43, 573–90.
Dawson D, McCulloch K (2005) Managing fatigue: it’s
about sleep. Sleep Med Rev 9, 365–80.