Ahead of the clocks springing forward on 29 March, a new comprehensive review led by researchers at the University of Kent has reignited the debate over whether the United Kingdom should abandon Daylight Saving Time (DST). The study, published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, analysed 157 studies from 36 countries and found that the health and safety effects of the twice‑yearly clock change are far from straightforward. For policymakers, public health officials, and anyone interested in how time shifts influence wellbeing, the findings offer a nuanced picture that cautions against hasty decisions.
Why the Daylight Saving Time Debate Matters for Public Health
Discussions about scrapping DST often focus on the perceived downsides: lost sleep, increased heart attack risk, and a spike in traffic accidents when clocks move forward in spring. Advocacy groups have highlighted these points, arguing that the practice is an outdated relic that harms the UK population. The University of Kent review confirms that the spring transition is indeed associated with a short‑term rise in myocardial infarctions and fatal road collisions. However, the same data reveal a counterbalancing trend: incidents of crime involving physical harm tend to drop during the same period.
When the clocks fall back in autumn, the pattern flips. All‑cause mortality and workplace accidents decline, while reports of physical‑harm‑related crime increase. These opposing trends suggest that any evaluation of DST must consider both risks and benefits across the full annual cycle, rather than isolating a single transition.
Explore the University of Kent’s public health research programmes
What the Comprehensive Review Actually Found
The research team, based at the Medway School of Pharmacy in collaboration with the University of Cologne, followed PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. They searched five major databases—PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and EconLit—for human studies published up to June 2025 that examined either the immediate effects of the clock change or compared health outcomes under DST versus standard time.
Key observations from the analysis include:
- Spring forward: ↑ heart attacks, ↑ fatal traffic accidents, ↓ physical‑harm crime.
- Fall back: ↓ all‑cause mortality, ↓ workplace accidents, ↑ physical‑harm crime.
- Longer‑term exposure: During summer months, living under DST correlates with lower all‑cause mortality and fewer traffic accidents compared with permanent standard time.
- Winter standard time: May be linked to reduced sleep duration, though evidence on broader sleep and circadian rhythm effects remains limited.
- Psychiatric outcomes: No clear or consistent association emerged between DST and mental health indicators.
The authors stress that while patterns are observable, the underlying evidence base is heterogeneous. Many studies are observational, suffer from small sample sizes, or lack control for confounding variables such as temperature, socioeconomic status, or concurrent public health interventions. Consequently, the review calls for more robust, longitudinal research before any definitive cost‑benefit analysis can be performed.
Implications for UK Policy Makers and Public Health Practitioners
For those shaping national policy, the University of Kent findings underscore the importance of evidence‑based decision making. Rather than relying on anecdotal claims or single‑study headlines, policymakers should consider:
- Seasonal trade‑offs: Any move to abolish DST would eliminate the summer‑time benefits (reduced mortality and traffic accidents) while retaining the winter‑time drawbacks (potentially shorter sleep).
- Crime dynamics: The inverse relationship between clock changes and physical‑harm crime suggests that altering time policy could have unintended effects on public safety.
- Research gaps: Investment in large‑scale, prospective studies—perhaps leveraging NHS data or wearable technology—would provide clearer insights into how DST influences cardiovascular health, accident rates, and sleep patterns across diverse populations.
Public health professionals can use this nuanced view to inform community advice. For example, clinicians might emphasize sleep hygiene strategies around the spring transition while also noting the potential cardiovascular vigilance needed during that period. Similarly, occupational health teams could focus on workplace safety measures in autumn when accident rates dip but crime‑related incidents rise.
Learn more about studying health sciences at the University of Kent
How the University of Kent Contributes to the Global Conversation
The review exemplifies the institution’s strength in interdisciplinary research, bridging pharmacy, epidemiology, and social sciences. By collaborating with international partners such as the University of Cologne, the Kent team demonstrates a commitment to producing work that transcends national borders and informs global debates.
Prospective students interested in contributing to similar research can explore programmes in the School of Psychology, the School of Social Sciences, or the Medway School of Pharmacy. These departments offer undergraduate and postgraduate pathways that emphasise evidence‑based practice, systematic review methodologies, and public health policy analysis.
Moreover, the University’s commitment to open science is evident in the availability of the full paper via the European Journal of Epidemiology (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-026-01372-8). Open access to such research enables practitioners, policymakers, and the public to scrutinise the data and draw their own conclusions.
Practical Takeaways for Individuals Navigating the Clock Change
While the academic debate continues, there are practical steps individuals can take to mitigate any adverse effects of DST:
- Prioritise sleep hygiene: In the days leading up to the spring shift, gradually advance bedtime by 15‑minute increments to ease the transition.
- Monitor cardiovascular symptoms: Those with existing heart conditions should be vigilant for chest pain or unusual fatigue in the week after clocks spring forward.
- Stay alert on the roads: Increased fatigue can impair reaction times; consider avoiding long drives immediately after the change.
- Leverage the autumn benefits: Use the extra hour of evening light in autumn for outdoor exercise, which may help counteract the rise in crime‑related incidents reported in the data.
These strategies are grounded in the evidence presented by the Kent research and can help individuals protect their health regardless of future policy decisions.
Looking Ahead: The Need for More Robust Evidence
The University of Kent study concludes with a clear call to action: more high‑quality research is essential. Future investigations should aim for:
- Randomised controlled trials where feasible, or robust quasi‑experimental designs using natural experiments.
- Longitudinal tracking of health outcomes across multiple years to capture both short‑term and long‑term effects.
- Inclusion of diverse populations to assess whether impacts vary by age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or geographic location.
- Integration of objective measures such as actigraphy for sleep, biomarkers for cardiovascular stress, and real‑time crime statistics.
Only with such comprehensive data can policymakers confidently weigh the trade‑offs associated with DST and decide whether maintaining, modifying, or abolishing the practice serves the best interests of public health and safety in the UK.
Discover undergraduate courses in public health at the University of Kent
References
Steponenaite, A., et al. (2026). Daylight saving time and health: A systematic review of 157 studies from 36 countries. European Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-026-01372-8
University of Kent. (2026). News Centre: It may be too soon to scrap Daylight Saving Time, suggests Kent research. https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/…
