The WHO/ILO report on long working hours and ischaemic heart disease – Conclusions are not supported by the evidence

Abstract

Working hours is a ubiquitous exposure given that most adults are employed, and one that is modifiable via legislative change if not always through individual-level choice. According to a recent report from the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO), there is currently sufficient evidence to conclude that long working hours (i.e., ≥55 h per week) elevate the risk of fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease to a clinically meaningful extent. After assessing the data used by the ILO/WHO, we feel that the expert group has not correctly applied their own framework for assessing the strength of the evidence. In the meta-analysis of observational studies in the report, the association between long working hours and incident heart disease appeared stronger in lower quality cohort studies with a high risk of bias (minimally-adjusted hazard ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.01–1.41, compared to standard 35–40 weekly hours) than in the superior-quality studies with a lower risk of bias for which the estimate was not significantly different from the null (1.08, 95% CI 0.93–1.25). There was also marked effect modification, such that there was no increase in ischaemic heart disease for those working long hours in high socioeconomic status occupations, a finding also reported in analyses of a recent census-based cohort study which was not included in the report. Our meta-analysis of all these studies confirm that the findings are not consistent but differ between subgroups and that the summary age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio for long working hours in high socioeconomic status occupations does not support excess risk: 0.85, 95% CI 0.63–1.13 (Pinteraction = 0.005, total N = 451,982). For these and other reasons detailed in this commentary, we advance a more cautious interpretation of the existing evidence. The conclusions should be restricted to low socioeconomic status occupations only and more research is still needed to confirm or refute harmfulness and determine clinical relevance.