First, the validity of the on-call duty exposure items is not without problems.
As can be seen in Table 1, variance in on-call duty exposure was large.
In the following, the potential consequences of (i) on-call duty exposure and (ii) on-call duty experiences will be discussed.
Future research among heterogeneous samples may benefit from more valid measures of on-call duty exposure (e.g., official work schedules).
Furthermore, a repeated measurements diary study in which participants keep track of their on-call hours and momentary experiences might provide more insight into the relationship between the actual on-call duty exposure and fatigue, work-home interference, and performance.
In order to be able to draw clear conclusions about the relationship between off-site on-call duty exposure, fatigue, WHI, and PPD, further research with larger samples that include different professions and different types of on-call duties (e.g., with regard to the length and timing) is needed.
These data included contact with SARS patients; work areas; day, time, and characteristics of duty; exposure to high-risk aerosol-generating procedures; use of personal protective equipment; hand hygiene practices; and contact with other healthcare workers who did not use N-95 respirators.
In the study, which was presented to a conference of the American Academy of Otolaryngology this month in Denver, researchers from Haifa screened soldiers whose duties involved exposure to loud noises.
However, this association has been questioned (Bunn et al. 2004; Hesterberg et al. 2006; Valberg and Watson 2000) because of uncertainties regarding the link between the occupational records used to assess work history, specific job duties, and exposure.
It is our hope that this paper will assist managerial risk assessments by identifying: (1) duty holders (exposures); (2) societal risk non-compliance (vulnerabilities); and (3) risk mitigation strategies.
