Fatigue Risk Management Preferences for Consumer Sleep Technologies and Data Sharing in Aviation.

INTRODUCTION: Employees from any type of aviation services industry were asked to give their opinions about the usefulness of consumer sleep technologies (CSTs) during operations and their willingness to share data from CSTs with their organizations for fatigue risk management purposes under a variety of circumstances.METHODS: Respondents provided information about position in aviation and use of CST devices. Respondents ranked sleep issues and feedback metrics by perceived level of importance to operational performance. Respondents rated their likelihood to share data with their organization under a series of hypothetical situations.RESULTS: Between January-July 2023, 149 (N = 149) aviation professionals responded. Pilots comprised 72% (N = 108) of respondents; 84% (N = 125) of all respondents worked short- or medium-haul operations. "Nighttime operations" and "inconsistent sleep routines" ranked as the most important issues affecting sleep. "Sleep quality history" and "projected alertness levels" ranked as most important feedback metrics for personal management of fatigue. Respondents were split between CST users (N = 64) and nonusers (N = 68). CST users did not indicate a strong preference for a specific device brand. The most-reported reason for not using a CST was due to not owning one or no perceived need. Respondents indicated greater likelihood of data sharing under conditions where the device was provided to them by their organization.DISCUSSION: These results suggest that aviation professionals are more concerned about schedule-related disturbances to sleep than they are about endogenous sleep problems. Organizations may be able to increase compliance to data collection for fatigue risk management by providing employees with company-owned CSTs of any brand.Devine JK, Choynowski J, Hursh SR. Fatigue risk management preferences for consumer sleep technologies and data sharing in aviation. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2024; 95(5):265-272.