Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate (i) the risk of work disability (>10-day sickness absence spell or disability pension) due to common mental disorders (CMD) among social workers compared with other health and social care, education, and non-human service professionals and (ii) whether the risk was mediated by job stress.
METHODS: A cohort of 16 306 public sector professionals in Finland was followed using survey data from baseline (2004 or if not available, 2008) on job stress [job strain or effort-reward imbalance (ERI)] and register data on work disability due to CMD from baseline through 2011. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the risk of work disability due to CMD between three occupation-pairs in a counterfactual setting, controlling for age, sex, job contract, body mass index, alcohol risk use, smoking, and physical inactivity.
RESULTS: Social workers' job stress was at higher level only when compared to education professionals. Thus, the mediation hypothesis was analyzed comparing social workers to education professionals. Social workers had a higher risk of work disability due to CMD compared with education professionals [hazard ratio (HR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58–2.74]. This HR was partly mediated by job strain (24%) and ERI (12%). Social workers had a higher risk of work disability than non-human service professionals (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13–2.09), but not compared with other health and social care professionals.
CONCLUSIONS: Job stress partly mediated the excess risk of work disability among social workers only in comparison with education professionals.

Background: The workplace social capital is one of the important features of clinical work environment that improves the productivity and quality of services and safety through trust and social participation. Evaluation of workplace social capital requires a valid and reliable scale. The short-form workplace social capital questionnaire developed by Kouvonen has long been used to evaluate the workplace social capital. Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the questionnaire among a group of female Iranian health care workers. Methods: The Persian version of the short-form questionnaire of workplace social capital was finalized after translation and back-translation. 500 female health care workers completed the questionnaire. Then, the content validity and the construct validity of the questionnaire were assessed. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach's a, theta, and McDonald's Omega. The construct reliability and ICC were also evaluated. Results: Based on the maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis (n=250) and confirmatory factor analysis (n=250), two factors were identified. The factors could explain 65% of the total variance observed. The model had an acceptable fit: GFI=0.953, CFI=0.973, IFI=0.974, NFI=0.953, PNFI=0.522, RAMSEA=0.090, CMIN/DF=2.751, RMR=0.042. Convergent and divergent validity as well as internal consistency and construct reliability of the questionnaire were confirmed. Conclusion: The Persian version of Kouvonen workplace social capital has acceptable validity and reliability. The questionnaire can thus be used in future studies to assess the workplace social capital in Iranian health care workers. ; Peer reviewed

OBJECTIVE To examine whether physical inactivity is a risk factor for dementia, with attention to the role of cardiometabolic disease in this association and reverse causation bias that arises from changes in physical activity in the preclinical (prodromal) phase of dementia. DESIGN Meta-analysis of 19 prospective observational cohort studies. DATA SOURCES The Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations Consortium, the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, and the UK Data Service, including a total of 19 of a potential 9741 studies. REVIEW METHOD The search strategy was designed to retrieve individual-participant data from prospective cohort studies. Exposure was physical inactivity; primary outcomes were incident all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and the secondary outcome was incident cardiometabolic disease (that is, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke). Summary estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Study population included 404 840 people (mean age 45.5 years, 57.7% women) who were initially free of dementia, had a measurement of physical inactivity at study entry, and were linked to electronic health records. In 6.0 million person-years at risk, we recorded 2044 incident cases of all-cause dementia. In studies with data on dementia subtype, the number of incident cases of Alzheimer's disease was 1602 in 5.2 million person-years. When measured = 10 years before dementia onset, no difference in dementia risk between physically active and inactive participants was observed (hazard ratios 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14) and 0.96 (0.85 to 1.08) for the two outcomes). Physical inactivity was consistently associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio 1.42, 1.25 to 1.61), coronary heart disease (1.24, 1.13 to 1.36), and stroke (1.16, 1.05 to 1.27). Among people in whom cardiometabolic disease preceded dementia, physical inactivity was non-significantly associated with dementia (hazard ratio for physical activity assessed > 10 before dementia onset 1.30, 0.79 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease.

OBJECTIVE To examine whether physical inactivity is a risk factor for dementia, with attention to the role of cardiometabolic disease in this association and reverse causation bias that arises from changes in physical activity in the preclinical (prodromal) phase of dementia. DESIGN Meta-analysis of 19 prospective observational cohort studies. DATA SOURCES The Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations Consortium, the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, and the UK Data Service, including a total of 19 of a potential 9741 studies. REVIEW METHOD The search strategy was designed to retrieve individual-participant data from prospective cohort studies. Exposure was physical inactivity; primary outcomes were incident all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and the secondary outcome was incident cardiometabolic disease (that is, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke). Summary estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Study population included 404 840 people (mean age 45.5 years, 57.7% women) who were initially free of dementia, had a measurement of physical inactivity at study entry, and were linked to electronic health records. In 6.0 million person-years at risk, we recorded 2044 incident cases of all-cause dementia. In studies with data on dementia subtype, the number of incident cases of Alzheimer's disease was 1602 in 5.2 million person-years. When measured = 10 years before dementia onset, no difference in dementia risk between physically active and inactive participants was observed (hazard ratios 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14) and 0.96 (0.85 to 1.08) for the two outcomes). Physical inactivity was consistently associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio 1.42, 1.25 to 1.61), coronary heart disease (1.24, 1.13 to 1.36), and stroke (1.16, 1.05 to 1.27). Among people in whom cardiometabolic disease preceded dementia, physical inactivity was non-significantly associated with dementia (hazard ratio for physical activity assessed > 10 before dementia onset 1.30, 0.79 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease.

OBJECTIVE To examine whether physical inactivity is a risk factor for dementia, with attention to the role of cardiometabolic disease in this association and reverse causation bias that arises from changes in physical activity in the preclinical (prodromal) phase of dementia. DESIGN Meta-analysis of 19 prospective observational cohort studies. DATA SOURCES The Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations Consortium, the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, and the UK Data Service, including a total of 19 of a potential 9741 studies. REVIEW METHOD The search strategy was designed to retrieve individual-participant data from prospective cohort studies. Exposure was physical inactivity; primary outcomes were incident all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and the secondary outcome was incident cardiometabolic disease (that is, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke). Summary estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Study population included 404 840 people (mean age 45.5 years, 57.7% women) who were initially free of dementia, had a measurement of physical inactivity at study entry, and were linked to electronic health records. In 6.0 million person-years at risk, we recorded 2044 incident cases of all-cause dementia. In studies with data on dementia subtype, the number of incident cases of Alzheimer's disease was 1602 in 5.2 million person-years. When measured = 10 years before dementia onset, no difference in dementia risk between physically active and inactive participants was observed (hazard ratios 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14) and 0.96 (0.85 to 1.08) for the two outcomes). Physical inactivity was consistently associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio 1.42, 1.25 to 1.61), coronary heart disease (1.24, 1.13 to 1.36), and stroke (1.16, 1.05 to 1.27). Among people in whom cardiometabolic disease preceded dementia, physical inactivity was non-significantly associated with dementia (hazard ratio for physical activity assessed > 10 before dementia onset 1.30, 0.79 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease.

OBJECTIVE To examine whether physical inactivity is a risk factor for dementia, with attention to the role of cardiometabolic disease in this association and reverse causation bias that arises from changes in physical activity in the preclinical (prodromal) phase of dementia. DESIGN Meta-analysis of 19 prospective observational cohort studies. DATA SOURCES The Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations Consortium, the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, and the UK Data Service, including a total of 19 of a potential 9741 studies. REVIEW METHOD The search strategy was designed to retrieve individual-participant data from prospective cohort studies. Exposure was physical inactivity; primary outcomes were incident all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and the secondary outcome was incident cardiometabolic disease (that is, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke). Summary estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Study population included 404 840 people (mean age 45.5 years, 57.7% women) who were initially free of dementia, had a measurement of physical inactivity at study entry, and were linked to electronic health records. In 6.0 million person-years at risk, we recorded 2044 incident cases of all-cause dementia. In studies with data on dementia subtype, the number of incident cases of Alzheimer's disease was 1602 in 5.2 million person-years. When measured = 10 years before dementia onset, no difference in dementia risk between physically active and inactive participants was observed (hazard ratios 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14) and 0.96 (0.85 to 1.08) for the two outcomes). Physical inactivity was consistently associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio 1.42, 1.25 to 1.61), coronary heart disease (1.24, 1.13 to 1.36), and stroke (1.16, 1.05 to 1.27). Among people in whom cardiometabolic disease preceded dementia, physical inactivity was non-significantly associated with dementia (hazard ratio for physical activity assessed > 10 before dementia onset 1.30, 0.79 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease.

OBJECTIVE To examine whether physical inactivity is a risk factor for dementia, with attention to the role of cardiometabolic disease in this association and reverse causation bias that arises from changes in physical activity in the preclinical (prodromal) phase of dementia. DESIGN Meta-analysis of 19 prospective observational cohort studies. DATA SOURCES The Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations Consortium, the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, and the UK Data Service, including a total of 19 of a potential 9741 studies. REVIEW METHOD The search strategy was designed to retrieve individual-participant data from prospective cohort studies. Exposure was physical inactivity; primary outcomes were incident all-cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and the secondary outcome was incident cardiometabolic disease (that is, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke). Summary estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Study population included 404 840 people (mean age 45.5 years, 57.7% women) who were initially free of dementia, had a measurement of physical inactivity at study entry, and were linked to electronic health records. In 6.0 million person-years at risk, we recorded 2044 incident cases of all-cause dementia. In studies with data on dementia subtype, the number of incident cases of Alzheimer's disease was 1602 in 5.2 million person-years. When measured = 10 years before dementia onset, no difference in dementia risk between physically active and inactive participants was observed (hazard ratios 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14) and 0.96 (0.85 to 1.08) for the two outcomes). Physical inactivity was consistently associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio 1.42, 1.25 to 1.61), coronary heart disease (1.24, 1.13 to 1.36), and stroke (1.16, 1.05 to 1.27). Among people in whom cardiometabolic disease preceded dementia, physical inactivity was non-significantly associated with dementia (hazard ratio for physical activity assessed > 10 before dementia onset 1.30, 0.79 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS In analyses that addressed bias due to reverse causation, physical inactivity was not associated with all-cause dementia or Alzheimer's disease, although an indication of excess dementia risk was observed in a subgroup of physically inactive individuals who developed cardiometabolic disease. ; Peer reviewed

BACKGROUND: Working long hours might have adverse health effects, but whether this is true for all socioeconomic status groups is unclear. In this meta-analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, we investigated the role of long working hours as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We identified four published studies through a systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase up to April 30, 2014. Study inclusion criteria were English-language publication; prospective design (cohort study); investigation of the effect of working hours or overtime work; incident diabetes as an outcome; and relative risks, odds ratios, or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs, or sufficient information to calculate these estimates. Additionally, we used unpublished individual-level data from 19 cohort studies from the Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working-Populations Consortium and international open-access data archives. Effect estimates from published and unpublished data from 222 120 men and women from the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: During 1·7 million person-years at risk, 4963 individuals developed diabetes (incidence 29 per 10 000 person-years). The minimally adjusted summary risk ratio for long (≥55 h per week) compared with standard working hours (35-40 h) was 1·07 (95% CI 0·89-1·27, difference in incidence three cases per 10 000 person-years) with significant heterogeneity in study-specific estimates (I 2 =53%, p=0·0016). In an analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, the association between long working hours and diabetes was evident in the low socioeconomic status group (risk ratio 1·29, 95% CI 1·06-1·57, difference in incidence 13 per 10 000 person-years, I 2 =0%, p=0·4662), but was null in the high socioeconomic status group (1·00, 95% CI 0·80-1·25, incidence difference zero per 10 000 person-years, I(2)=15%, p=0·2464). The association in the low socioeconomic status group was robust to adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and physical activity, and remained after exclusion of shift workers. INTERPRETATION: In this meta-analysis, the link between longer working hours and type 2 diabetes was apparent only in individuals in the low socioeconomic status groups. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, European Union New and Emerging Risks in Occupational Safety and Health research programme, Finnish Work Environment Fund, Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research, German Social Accident Insurance, Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Academy of Finland, Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands), Economic and Social Research Council, US National Institutes of Health, and British Heart Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Working long hours might have adverse health effects, but whether this is true for all socioeconomic status groups is unclear. In this meta-analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, we investigated the role of long working hours as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We identified four published studies through a systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase up to April 30, 2014. Study inclusion criteria were English-language publication; prospective design (cohort study); investigation of the effect of working hours or overtime work; incident diabetes as an outcome; and relative risks, odds ratios, or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs, or sufficient information to calculate these estimates. Additionally, we used unpublished individual-level data from 19 cohort studies from the Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working-Populations Consortium and international open-access data archives. Effect estimates from published and unpublished data from 222 120 men and women from the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: During 1·7 million person-years at risk, 4963 individuals developed diabetes (incidence 29 per 10 000 person-years). The minimally adjusted summary risk ratio for long (≥55 h per week) compared with standard working hours (35-40 h) was 1·07 (95% CI 0·89-1·27, difference in incidence three cases per 10 000 person-years) with significant heterogeneity in study-specific estimates (I(2)=53%, p=0·0016). In an analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, the association between long working hours and diabetes was evident in the low socioeconomic status group (risk ratio 1·29, 95% CI 1·06-1·57, difference in incidence 13 per 10 000 person-years, I(2)=0%, p=0·4662), but was null in the high socioeconomic status group (1·00, 95% CI 0·80-1·25, incidence difference zero per 10 000 person-years, I(2)=15%, p=0·2464). The association in the low socioeconomic status group was robust to adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and physical activity, and remained after exclusion of shift workers. INTERPRETATION: In this meta-analysis, the link between longer working hours and type 2 diabetes was apparent only in individuals in the low socioeconomic status groups. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, European Union New and Emerging Risks in Occupational Safety and Health research programme, Finnish Work Environment Fund, Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research, German Social Accident Insurance, Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Academy of Finland, Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands), Economic and Social Research Council, US National Institutes of Health, and British Heart Foundation.

Objective To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. Data sources A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. Review methods The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. Results Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333 693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100 602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and ≥55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. ...

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. REVIEW METHODS: The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. RESULTS: Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333,693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100,602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and ≥ 55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk.

Objective To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. Data sources A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. Review methods The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. Results Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333 693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100 602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and >= 55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. Conclusions Individuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk.

Objective To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. Data sources A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. Review methods The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. Results Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333 693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100 602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and >= 55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. Conclusions Individuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies. REVIEW METHODS: The search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression. RESULTS: Cross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333 693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100 602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and ≥55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk.