Carlos Gómez-Salgado1
Juan Carlos Camacho-Vega2
Juan Gómez-Salgado3,4*
Juan Jesús García-Iglesias3
Javier Fagundo-Rivera5
Regina Allande-Cussó6
Jorge Martín-Pereira1
Carlos Ruiz-Frutos3,4- 1School of Doctorate, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain
- 2Department of Building Construction II, Higher Technical School of Building Engineering, University of Seville, Andalucia, Spain
- 3Department of Sociology, Social Work and Public Health, Faculty of Labour Sciences, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain
- 4Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad de Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Guayaquil, Ecuador
- 5Red Cross Nursing University Centre, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
- 6Department of Nursing, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
Objectives: The aim of this review was to assess the possible risk factors arising from working conditions, that could have an impact on the stress, fear, and anxiety of construction workers.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA format in the Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo electronic databases on February 3, 2023, using the following key words: anxiety, stress, fear, and construction workers. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools of the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Results: A total of 35 studies were included. The results showed a number of conditioning factors for stress, anxiety, and fear among construction workers such as age, inappropriate safety equipment, safety culture, high workload and long working hours, physical pain, low social support from direct supervisor or co-workers, lack of organizational justice and lack of reward, financial situation, maladaptive coping strategies, and characteristics of the pandemic.
Conclusions: There are a number of risk factors related to working conditions, organizations, and individuals that can affect the levels of stress, anxiety, and fear among construction workers, such as age, work hardship, safety culture and, especially, the long hours that construction professionals work. This may lead to an increase in the number of occupational accidents and higher associated fatality rates.
Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022367724, identifier: CRD42022367724.
Introduction
The construction sector is currently one of the main productive sectors and economic engines in most countries (1). It is in constant change, evolving as techniques improve and new technological advances appear. Despite this, it is one of the sectors with the highest mortality rates worldwide (2, 3), as it involves complex and hazardous activities such as construction itself, damming, road construction, engineering activities, demolition of all types of structures, rehabilitation and maintenance of structures, among others (4). These activities may involve a certain degree of danger if appropriate protective measures are not taken as they involve working at heights and with electrical hazards, exposure to high temperatures, excessive noise, chemical handling and dusty environment, carrying heavy equipment, handling heavy loads, and using heavy machinery (5). These circumstances or factors, which are not exceptional but common in their activity, make these workers carry out their work in harsh conditions that involve constant efforts and in environmental conditions that make their work difficult.
The tasks that construction workers perform may be found to be unsatisfactory for them due to the concurrence of factors related to the work itself, individual characteristics, lifestyle and concomitant health problems, and/or problems related to the professional performance itself (6, 7). In fact, these are considered to be high stress environments (8) and in which mental health problems appear to be growing (9). Stress among construction workers can lead to other problems on a physical level such as musculoskeletal disorders, on a mental level such as anxiety, and it can reduce productivity through absenteeism and presenteeism (10) and lead to errors that may endanger the safety and health of workers and co-workers (7).
Stress can be considered as the body's response to frequent and/or continuous mismatches between an individual's demands and the individual's ability to cope with them (11). This has direct physiological effects on the person and also affects health when our health maintenance behaviors are altered (12). The transactional model is one of the most prestigious models of the psychosocial stress process. Lazarus calls it “transactional” because it states that stress originates neither in the person nor in the environment, but in the interaction between the two (13). On the other hand, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model developed by Bakker and Demerouti (14) provides an insight into how a mismatch between work demands and resources can lead to mental health problems such as stress, anxiety, and fear. But mental diseases are not only caused by factors intrinsic to the construction site. Other studies have shown that the socio-cultural environment in which the worker lives is a key factor for the development of mental illnesses, many of which are associated with the consumption of alcohol and other substances (15).
It is well known that construction projects often have very tight deadlines. This means that the teams of people who carry out the work, whether they are craftsmen, site teams, supervisors, or technical staff, are under a lot of pressure from their companies. In addition to stress, this can cause anxiety in the worker. Anxiety, according to Spielberger (16), can be divided into state anxiety and trait anxiety. While the former is a temporary and situational state of emotion in response to a threat, the latter is part of the personality of each individual. Although there are several studies that have assessed the levels of anxiety, stress, and fear in construction workers, each of them addresses a number of specific factors that may increase the levels of these three variables, but it is uncertain which were analyzed as risk factors for each variable (anxiety, stress, and fear) and in each study. In a sector with a high number of occupational accidents, knowing the factors could be a useful tool for establishing possible effective protective and preventive measures for these workers, and could help future researchers to consider and prioritize some risk factors over others. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the factors influencing stress, fear, and anxiety among construction workers.
Methods
Study design
In order to assess the risk factors related to levels of anxiety, stress, and fear among construction workers in the construction industry, a systematic review was conducted following the guidelines of the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (17). The protocol followed is listed in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with code CRD42022367724.
Databases and search strategy
The search was carried out in the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Scopus, and PsycInfo electronic databases on the basis of the keywords that the research question yielded following the PECO strategy (Table 1).
Table 1. PECO format: keywords (Spain, 2023).
Based on these keywords, the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus was consulted, yielding the descriptors Anxiety, Psychological Stress, Fear, and Construction industry. In order to enlarge the scope of the search, synonymous terms were used to complete the search based on the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus (Table 2), linked by the Boolean operators AND and OR.
Table 2. Terms used in the search (Spain, 2023).
Table 3 shows the search strategy used, carried out on February 3, 2023, for each of the above databases during the search process for articles published in the last 10 years.
Table 3. Search strategy (Spain, 2023).
Selection criteria
The following inclusion criteria were used for the selection of articles: (1) original articles published in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese; (2) typology: original articles, meta-analysis, short communications, and case reports; (3) articles published in the last 10 years; and (4) articles measuring any of the following values and/or effects: level of stress, anxiety and fear, number of cases of people with stress/anxiety/fear, substance use, insomnia, physical manifestations of psychological stress, comparison according to type of profession/sex/country, possible risks for the materialization of accidents at work, coping measures, how work and/or psychosocial conditions influence, and health-work relationship and vice versa. Similarly, the exclusion criteria were: (1) studies in a language other than English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese; (2) typology: opinion articles, editorials, and letters to the editor; (3) studies of low scientific-technical quality after applying the quality assessment tool; and (4) articles that did not answer the research question and were not related to the objective of the review.
Data collection and extraction
For this search, a pre-established protocol was initially followed for the search and revision strategy in order to minimize the risk of bias in the selection and subsequent publication. This strategy was similar in the different databases by using the aforementioned descriptors and related keywords through the Boolean operators AND and OR. In the drafting of this work, two researchers independently carried out the bibliographic searches. As a secondary strategy, a search was carried out based on the use of references and names of the authors cited in the different records selected (reverse or snowball search) with the intention of verifying the existence of works not found in the primary search. For the screening and selection of articles, duplicate studies were eliminated and those articles that could be included were selected after reading the abstract and title according to the previously established criteria. After this initial screening, the same authors analyzed the full articles and selected those studies potentially suitable for inclusion in the review. This selection was made by consensus between the two researchers and any discrepancies that may have arisen were resolved by a third author.
Methodological quality assessment
Two reviewers independently determined the methodological quality of the selected studies using the critical appraisal tools of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) at the University of Adelaide. These tools allow the assessment of the methodological quality of a study and the extent to which a study has excluded or minimized the possibility of bias in its design, conduct, and/or analysis. The versions for analytical cross-sectional studies (8 items) (Supplementary Table S1), for qualitative research (10 items) (Supplementary Table S2), and for randomized controlled trials (12 items) (Supplementary Table S3) were used, setting the cut-off point at 6–9, respectively, for inclusion in this review. The included studies were assessed and the mean scores were obtained.
Results
A total of 35 studies were selected. The initial search strategies identified a total of 1,150 references, which were then screened according to the topic of this review. Twenty-six of the 35 studies were analytical cross-sectional studies, 2 carried out qualitative research, 6 were mixed methods, and 1 was a quasi-experimental study (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Search results (PRISMA Flowchart) (Spain, 2023).
Table 4 shows the characteristics of each of the 35 studies included in this review. These were classified by author and year of publication, country, design and objective, participants, instrument, and main results. In addition, the results of the JBI critical appraisal tool were added.
Table 4. Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review (Spain, 2023).
Of the 35 selected studies, 8 articles were conducted in China; 4 in the United States, Australia and Korea; 2 studies were conducted in Singapore, Ghana, and India; and 1 study was conducted in Canada, Ethiopia, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. In 26 of the 35 selected articles, the sample consisted of construction workers in general, and in 3 of them a distinction was made between workers and supervisors. In another 2, the sample consisted of foreign or migrant construction workers, and the rest had specific characteristics, making a total aggregate sample of 13,399 subjects. As for the topic of research, 31 studies were found on stress, 10 on anxiety, and 3 on fear.
Stress
The prevalence of substantial mental distress was between 16 and 50% among construction workers (20, 32) [20, 32]. A number of age-related stressors were identified (21, 30, 33, 39) [21, 30, 39, 33], as well as inappropriate safety equipment (18, 23) [23] and safety culture (5, 22–25, 31, 32, 34, 43) [5, 22–25, 31, 32, 34, 43], high workload (19, 41) [1, 41] and responsibilities (34), physical pain (20, 21, 27, 29), the psychological capital (35) and emotional intelligence (5), low participation in decision-making (19) and low social support from direct supervisor or co-workers (19, 23, 30, 33, 34, 41), the financial situation (26, 41), working hours (27, 28, 44), maladaptive coping strategies (28, 43, 46), the characteristics of the pandemic (46) and lack of knowledge (47). The results also revealed stress as a causative agent of occupational accidents (29, 36, 40).
Anxiety
Between 37 and 50% of construction workers showed moderate to extremely severe levels of anxiety (47, 50). Among the risk factors to which construction workers may be exposed are those related to working conditions (25, 37, 45), working hours (28), substance use (28) and nicotine dependence (50), safety culture (37), age (39), high workload (37), lack of organizational justice and lack of reward (37), ethnicity and lack of knowledge (47), and the characteristics of the pandemic (51).
Fear
Fear among construction workers was mainly associated with the characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic (46, 51), with possible job insecurity (46), and with fear of losing their jobs (49).
Discussion
The different studies showed multiple conditioning factors for stress, anxiety, and fear among construction workers such as age, inappropriate safety equipment, safety culture, high workload and long working hours, physical pain, low social support from direct supervisor or co-workers, lack of organizational justice and lack of reward, financial situation, maladaptive coping strategies, and characteristics of the pandemic.
The number of hours worked by employees is a determining factor for the level of stress according to the Occupational Stress Index (OSI). Several studies have found working hours of more than 12 h per day (27) or up to 47 h per week (28). This may lead to people not having enough time to spend with family/friends or to experimenting considerable fatigue, with the possible risk of injury or accidents of various kinds (22). This may require an understanding of the individual characteristics of workers in order to reduce the work-related stress generated by working hours and the associated lack of sleep that this may trigger (39).
In many cases, construction projects have to comply with a completion date, and must be finished within that timeframe with the resources that were initially planned. In this sense, many construction workers, despite being fatigued, continue to work for fear of losing their jobs, prioritizing the economic needs of their families over their physical health (27). Likewise, these long working days sharing space and tasks with other colleagues and superiors can be triggers of emotional stress related to an excessive mental workload (34) and at the physical level. The nature of construction work makes overexertion commonplace and routine, exposing the worker to frequent injuries that have a physical and mental impact on their daily life, both at work and in their social and family life (29). This could be explained by the job preservation mechanism, where people tend to work much harder when they perceive a threat of job loss (52). Similarly, financial strength can be a protective element or have a buffering effect on mental health problems in this area, as it allows individuals to meet their daily needs and have more resources to seek immediate mental health care (53).
On the other hand, several of the studies in this systematic review link the age of individuals to mental health (21, 30, 33, 39). In the work carried out by Yaldiz et al. (33), age was positively related to perceived stress. In contrast, the study by Turner and Lingard (39) found no relationship between stress, depression, and anxiety and age, but did find that only one age group, 30–39-year-olds, experienced a mild level of anxiety. Younger workers were more likely to be concerned about the amount and complexity of work than about their own ability, as they were inexperienced at this age at which they are likely to be unable to adequately cope with the additional workload. In addition, young workers more frequently overexerted themselves for significant periods of time and in the face of higher physical burdens (54). In contrast, a study in Ghana found no significant differences in levels of work-related mental health problems among different age subgroups of young people (45).
Safety culture is another factor that has been linked to higher levels of stress and anxiety (5, 22–25, 31, 32, 34, 43). In fact, many workers who are subjected to high levels of stress are more prone to accidents at work due to non-compliance with safety measures (43); i.e., the risk of accidents in stressed workers is up to 3.47 times more frequent than in unstressed workers (36). Similarly, masons tend to have little participation in decision-making, which, coupled with high work demand, low social support, and low organizational justice (55) may cause symptomatology consistent with stress, depression, and anxiety (19), thus increasing the risk of errors.
In this line, the low social support of the direct supervisor or co-workers is a key element as a protective or risk factor, depending on the case (19, 23, 30, 33, 34, 41). According to Bowers et al. (26), the most common stressors are lack of special events (86%), relationship problems with partners (68%), financial stress (62%), shift work (62%), and social isolation (60%). This phenomenon can lead many construction workers who believe they have mental health problems to be reluctant to participate in mental health programs or to seek help or support from family members, superiors, or medical services (39).
Finally, with appropriate coping techniques, construction workers can improve their stress levels. However, maladaptive coping techniques such as substance use (alcohol and drugs), self-distraction, denial, venting, among others, lead to increased depression, anxiety, and stress (28, 43, 46).
Limitations
The present study has a number of limitations. Firstly, while the studies included in this review offered valuable contributions to knowledge about the mental health of construction workers, there are not enough studies that encompass the geographical dispersion and socio-cultural differences, types of construction work, and situations that can be encountered in the construction sector. This is why the results found in this review cannot be extended to all construction typologies, company types and sizes, and the important contextual variations that may exist in different regions of the world. Secondly, the multifactorial nature that can give rise to the different risk factors related to mental health makes it impossible to establish a precise interpretation of their cause, as many of these factors are found outside the workplace, such as education, culture, religion, family, or the personal condition of each worker, among others. In this sense, another limitation to be considered is the fact that the different working conditions established in each country at a global level and the laws and customs applied in each one of them in this area hinder the performance of a homogeneous analysis in general terms, as coping behaviors may differ considerably between one place or another, since certain working contexts that could a priori be considered susceptible to harming the health of the worker have become normalized.
Conclusions
Accidents at work can be related to the mental health of workers, and age, hardship, and especially the long hours worked by construction professionals are factors that are significantly related to stress, anxiety, and fear. However, further studies are needed in this area that also include different work contexts and variables such as culture, education, professional qualifications, work environment, support systems, among others, in order to establish an early detection of risks.
The findings of this review could help construction companies to establish policies toward improving the working conditions of their employees and to increase knowledge about mental health in this sector. In this way, researchers and professionals dedicated to occupational safety, health, and risk prevention can identify these psychosocial factors and establish strategies and proposals to minimize the possible occurrence of such risk factors.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing: CG-S, JG-I, JG-S, JF-R, JC-V, RA-C, JM-P, and CR-F. Data curation: CG-S, JC-V, CR-F, and JG-I. Methodology, resources, and visualization: CG-S, JG-I, JG-S, JF-R, JC-V, RA-C, and CR-F. Project administration: JG-S, JC-V, and CG-S. Software: CG-S, JG-I, and JG-S. Supervision: JG-S, JG-I, JF-R, RA-C, and CR-F. Validation: JG-I, JC-V, JG-S, RA-C, and JF-R. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1226914/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Stiles S, Golightly D, Ryan B. Impact of COVID-19 on health and safety in the construction sector. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. (2021) 31:425–37. doi: 10.1002/hfm.20882
2. Eurostat. Accidents at work statistics - Statistics Explained. Bur Labor Stat. (2022). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Accidents_at_work_statistics (accessed February 14, 2023).
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2021. (2022). Available online at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf (accessed February 14, 2023).
4. Kazar G, Comu S. Exploring the relations between the physiological factors and the likelihood of accidents on construction sites. Eng Constr Archit Manag. (2022) 29:456–75. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2020-0958
5. Alsulami H, Serbaya SH, Rizwan A, Saleem M, Maleh Y, Alamgir Z. Impact of emotional intelligence on the stress and safety of construction workers' in Saudi Arabia. Eng Constr Archit Manag. (2021) 30:1365–78. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-06-2021-0481
6. Alavinia SM, Van Den Berg TIJ, Van Duivenbooden C, Elders LAM, Burdorf A. Impact of work-related factors, lifestyle, and work ability on sickness absence among Dutch construction workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. (2009) 35:325–33. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1340
7. Leung MY, Liang Q, Yu J. Development of a mindfulness–stress–performance model for construction workers. Constr Manag Econ. (2016) 34:110–28. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2016.1147652
8. Xiong B, Skitmore M, Xia B. Exploring and validating the internal dimensions of occupational stress: evidence from construction cost estimators in China. Constr Manag Econ. (2015) 33:495–507. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2015.1050967
9. Milner A, Law P. Mental Health on the Construction Industry. Melbourne, VIC: Mates in Construction (ed) (2017). p. 15.
10. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Drivers and Barriers for Psychosocial Risk Management: An Analysis of the Findings of the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks. Union. PO of the E, editor. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2012).
11. Ganster DC, Rosen CC. Work stress and employee health. J Manage. (2013) 39:1085–122. doi: 10.1177/0149206313475815
12. Larzelere MM, Jones GN. Stress and health. Prim Care. (2008) 35:839–56. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2008.07.011
14. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. (2017) 22:273–85. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056
15. Flannery J, Ajayi SO, Oyegoke AS. Alcohol and substance misuse in the construction industry. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. (2021) 27:472–87. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2019.1601376
16. Spielberger CD. Anxiety state-trait-process. In: Spielberger C. D. Sarason I. G., editor. Stress and Anxiety. New York, NY: Wiley (1975). p. 115–43. Available online at: https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=1082144 (accessed February 14, 2023).
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. (2021) 372:n17. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
18. Leung MY, Chan IYS, Yu J. Preventing construction worker injury incidents through the management of personal stress and organizational stressors. Accid Anal Prev. (2012) 48:156–66. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.017
19. Boschman JS, van der Molen HF, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW. Psychosocial work environment and mental health among construction workers. Appl Ergon. (2013) 44:748–55. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.01.004
20. Jacobsen HB, Caban-Martinez A, Onyebeke LC, Sorensen G, Dennerlein JT, Reme SE. Construction workers struggle with a high prevalence of mental distress, and this is associated with their pain and injuries. J Occup Environ Med. (2013) 55:1197–204. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31829c76b3
21. Hammer LB, Truxillo DM, Bodner T, Rineer J, Pytlovany AC, Richman A. Effects of a workplace intervention targeting psychosocial risk factors on safety and health outcomes. Biomed Res Int. (2015) 2015:836967. doi: 10.1155/2015/836967
22. Seo HC, Lee YS, Kim JJ, Jee NY. Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary construction workers using structural equation modeling. Saf Sci. (2015) 77:160–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.03.010
23. Leung MY, Liang Q, Olomolaiye P. Impact of job stressors and stress on the safety behavior and accidents of construction workers. J Manag Eng. (2016) 32:1–10. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000373
24. Chen Y, McCabe B, Hyatt D. Impact of individual resilience and safety climate on safety performance and psychological stress of construction workers: a case study of the Ontario construction industry. J Safety Res. (2017) 61:167–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2017.02.014
25. Lim S, Chi S, Lee JD, Lee HJ, Choi H. Analyzing psychological conditions of field-workers in the construction industry. Int J Occup Environ Health. (2017) 23:261–81. doi: 10.1080/10773525.2018.1474419
26. Bowers J, Lo J, Miller P, Mawren D, Jones B. Psychological distress in remote mining and construction workers in Australia. Med J Aust. (2018) 208:391–7. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00950
27. Chakraborty T, Das SK, Pathak V, Mukhopadhyay S. Occupational stress, musculoskeletal disorders and other factors affecting the quality of life in Indian construction workers. Int J Constr Manag. (2018) 18:144–50. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2017.1294281
28. Langdon RR, Sawang S. Construction workers' well-being: what leads to depression, anxiety, and stress? J Constr Eng Manag. (2018) 144:1406. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001406
29. Liang Q, Leung M-Y, Cooper C. Focus group study to explore critical factors for managing stress of construction workers. J Constr Eng Manag. (2018) 144:1477. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001477
30. Maqsoom A, Mughees A, Safdar U, Afsar B, Badar ul Ali Z. Intrinsic psychosocial stressors and construction worker productivity: impact of employee age and industry experience. Econ Res Istraiencety. (2018) 31:1880–902. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1495571
31. Wang D, Wang X, Xia N. How safety-related stress affects workers' safety behavior: the moderating role of psychological capital. Saf Sci. (2018) 103:247–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.020
32. Widajati N. Problem focus coping model to face working environment stressors prevents unsafe action among workers in a steel construction plant. Indian J Public Heal Res Dev. (2018) 9:82–8. doi: 10.5958/0976-5506.2018.00973.7
33. Yaldiz LM, Truxillo DM, Bodner T, Hammer LB. Do resources matter for employee stress? It depends on how old you are. J Vocat Behav. (2018) 107:182–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.005
34. Hampton P, Chinyio EA, Riva S. Framing stress and associated behaviours at work an ethnography study in the United Kingdom. Eng Constr Archit Manag. (2019) 26:2566–80. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-10-2018-0432
35. He C, Jia G, McCabe B, Chen Y, Sun J. Impact of psychological capital on construction worker safety behavior: communication competence as a mediator. J Safety Res. (2019) 71:231–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.09.007
36. Hussen J, Dagne H, Yenealem DG. Factors associated with occupational injury among hydropower dam construction workers, South East Ethiopia, 2018. Biomed Res Int. (2020) 2020:6152612. doi: 10.1155/2020/6152612
37. Jung M, Lim S, Chi S. Impact of work environment and occupational stress on safety behavior of individual construction workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:8304. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228304
38. Roche AM, Chapman J, Duraisingam V, Phillips B, Finnane J, Pidd K. Construction workers' alcohol use, knowledge, perceptions of risk and workplace norms. Drug Alcohol Rev. (2020) 39:941–9. doi: 10.1111/dar.13075
39. Turner M, Lingard H. Examining the interaction between bodily pain and mental health of construction workers. Constr Manag Econ. (2020) 38:1009–23. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2020.1791920
40. Zheng J, Gou X, Li H, Xue H, Xie H. Linking challenge–hindrance stressors to safety outcomes and performance: a dual mediation model for construction workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:1–15. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217867
41. Dennerlein JT, Eyllon M, Garverich S, Weinstein D, Manjourides J, Vallas SP, et al. Associations between work-related factors and psychological distress among construction workers. J Occup Environ Med. (2021) 63:1052–7. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002311
42. Iremeka FU, Okeke SAC, Agu PU, Isilebo NC, Aneke M, Ezepue EI, et al. Intervention for stress management among skilled construction workers. Medicine. (2021) 100:1–9. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026621
43. Liang Q, Leung M, Ahmed K. How adoption of coping behaviors determines construction workers' safety: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Saf Sci. (2021) 133:105035. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105035
44. Choi W, Lee SJ, Lee WJ, Beak EM, Kim KY. Job satisfaction level of safety and health manager in construction industry: pandemic period. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:58. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19105858
45. Frimpong S, Bemah Antwi A, Yosia Sunindijo R, Changxin Wang C, Ampratwum G, Dansoh A, et al. Health status of young construction workers in the Global South: the case of Ghana. Saf Sci. (2022) 148:105673. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105673
46. Liang H, Liu T, Yang W, Xia F. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic perception on job stress of construction workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:10169. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191610169
47. Palaniappan K, Natarajan R, Dasgupta C. Prevalence and risk factors for depression, anxiety and stress among foreign construction workers in Singapore - a cross-sectional study. Int J Constr Manag. (2022) 24:1–9. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2070343
48. Palaniappan K, Rajaraman N, Ghosh S. Effectiveness of peer support to reduce depression, anxiety and stress among migrant construction workers in Singapore. Eng Constr Archit Manag. (2022). doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2022-0269 [Epub ahead of print].
49. Segbenya M, Yeboah E. Effect of occupational health and safety on employee performance in the ghanaian construction sector. Environ Health Insights. (2022) 16:7222. doi: 10.1177/11786302221137222
50. Sushanthi S, Doraikannan S, Indiran MA. Assessment of anxiety, depression and nicotine dependence among construction workers in Chennai - A cross sectional study. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res. (2022) 12:263–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.03.004
51. Wu TL, Liu H Te. Causal model analysis of the effect of policy formalism, COVID-19 fear, social support and work stress on construction workers' anxiety during the epidemic. Build. (2022) 13:10. doi: 10.3390/buildings13010010
52. Shoss MK, Su S, Schlotzhauer AE, Carusone N. Working hard or hardly working? An examination of job preservation responses to job insecurity. J Manage. (2022). doi: 10.1177/01492063221107877
53. Patel V, Burns JK, Dhingra M, Tarver L, Kohrt BA, Lund C. Income inequality and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association and a scoping review of mechanisms. World Psychiatry. (2018) 17:76–89. doi: 10.1002/wps.20492
54. Boadu EF, Wang CC, Sunindijo RY. Characteristics of the construction industry in developing countries and its implications for health and safety: an exploratory study in Ghana. Int J Environ Res Public Heal. (2020) 17:4110. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114110
Keywords: anxiety, stress, fear, mental health, construction workers, construction industry, work conditions
Citation: Gómez-Salgado C, Camacho-Vega JC, Gómez-Salgado J, García-Iglesias JJ, Fagundo-Rivera J, Allande-Cussó R, Martín-Pereira J and Ruiz-Frutos C (2023) Stress, fear, and anxiety among construction workers: a systematic review. Front. Public Health 11:1226914. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1226914
Received: 22 May 2023; Accepted: 27 June 2023;
Published: 13 July 2023.
Edited by:
Luigi Vimercati, University of Bari Aldo Moro, ItalyReviewed by:
Orhan Korhan, Eastern Mediterranean University, CyprusAli Sahebi, Medical University of Ilam, Iran
Copyright © 2023 Gómez-Salgado, Camacho-Vega, Gómez-Salgado, García-Iglesias, Fagundo-Rivera, Allande-Cussó, Martín-Pereira and Ruiz-Frutos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Juan Gómez-Salgado, salgado@uhu.es