4.3 Article

Assessment of sleepiness, fatigue, and depression among Gulf Cooperation Council commercial airline pilots

期刊

SLEEP AND BREATHING
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 411-419

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-017-1565-7

关键词

Sleepiness; Depression; Anxiety; Sleep apnea; Pilots; Airlines

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University as a part of the Undergraduate Students Research Support Program (URSP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose No studies have assessed the prevalence of fatigue, depression, sleepiness, and the risk of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among commercial airlines pilots in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Methods This was a quantitative crosssectional study conducted among pilots who were on active duty and had flown during the past 6 months for one of three commercial airline companies. We included participants with age between 20 and 65 years. Data were collected using a predesigned electronic questionnaire composed of questions related to demographic information in addition to the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Berlin Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results The study included 328 pilots with a mean age +/- standard deviation of 41.4 +/- 9.7 years. Overall, 224 (68.3%) pilots had an FSS score >= 36 indicating severe fatigue and 221 (67.4%) reported making mistakes in the cockpit because of fatigue. One hundred and twelve (34.1%) pilots had an ESS score >= 10 indicating excessive daytime sleepiness and 148 (45.1%) reported falling asleep at the controls at least once without previously agreeing with their colleagues. One hundred and thirteen (34.5%) pilots had an abnormal HADS depression score (>= 8), and 96 (29.3%) pilots were at high risk for OSA requiring further assessment. Conclusion Fatigue, sleepiness, risk of OSA, and depression are prevalent among GCC commercial airline pilots. Regular assessment by aviation authorities is needed to detect and treat these medical problems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据