Ahead of the beginning of Daylight Saving Time (DST) on 29 March, a comprehensive international review by researchers at the University of Kent has highlighted the complex arguments for and against scrapping the twice-yearly clock change, and the need for more evidence before a decision can be made.
Calls to scrap Daylight Saving Time have intensified in recent years with campaigners often emphasising the negative consequences it has on public health and wellbeing in the UK. However, a review of 157 studies from 36 countries led by the Medway School of Pharmacy in partnership with researchers at the University of Cologne suggests that this simple messaging can be misleading.
The research team conducted a systematic review following international reporting guidelines and searched five major scientific databases – PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and EconLit – for studies published up to June 2025. Human studies assessing either short-term effects of clock changes or comparisons between daylight saving time and standard time were included.
The review revealed that when clocks ‘spring forward’, the shift is associated with an increased number of heart attacks and fatal traffic accidents, but also with less crime involving physical harm. On the contrary, when clocks ‘fall back’ by an hour in the Autumn, all-cause mortality and workplace accidents appear to reduce, whilst crimes involving physical harm increase.
When examining longer periods rather than transition periods alone, the researchers found that living under daylight saving time during summer months was associated with lower all-cause mortality and fewer traffic accidents compared with standard time.
In contrast, standard time during winter may be associated with shorter sleep duration, although evidence for broader sleep and circadian rhythm effects remains limited. The review found no clear or consistent evidence linking daylight saving time to psychiatric outcomes.
Despite the number of studies reviewed, the researchers found the evidence within them was limited and have emphasised the need for more robust research before firm conclusions can be made about the cost-benefit of Daylight Saving Time.
As Dr Aiste Steponenaite, the Sleep & Circadian Neuroscientist at the University of Kent that led the study, explains: ‘Public debate often frames daylight saving time as either clearly harmful or clearly beneficial but our findings suggest the reality is more nuanced. This work shows why simple headlines do not capture the full picture. Policymakers deserve evidence that reflects both risks and benefits — not assumptions.’
The full paper can be read in the European Journal of Epidemiology, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-026-01372-8
For interview requests, please email pressoffice@kent.ac.uk.