Chan, A P C; Nwaogu, J M and Naslund, J A (2020) Mental ill-health risk factors in the construction industry: Systematic review. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3): 04020004, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Mental ill health is a significant cause of suicide and disability worldwide. It has particularly affected the construction industry. The construction labor sectors in Australia and the United Kingdom have suicide rates 2 and 3.7 times higher, respectively, than their overall national averages, which has attracted the attention of researchers and the industry. However, few studies have examined the state of construction workers' mental health. This paper systematically reviews the existing body of knowledge on mental health in the construction industry. In total, 16 journal articles met inclusion criteria, and 32 risk factors (RFs) were deduced. The foremost RFs were related to job demand and job control. A conceptual framework and checklist to aid in better understanding these RFs were developed. In assessing mental health, the primary tool used was the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale. The findings of this study help to deepen the understanding of professional mental health assessment scales and relevant RFs and protective factors as used in the construction industry. The study concludes that stronger methodologies are needed for studies into RFs and protective factors in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction workers; mental ill health; risk factor; systematic review |
| Index terms: | journal, construction worker, conceptual framework, systematic literature review, job demand, construction industry, construction labour, anxiety, health risk, risk factor, body of knowledge, suicide, methodology, depression, disability, Australia, mental health, United Kingdom, job control |
| Subjects: | health conditions and diseases, practitioner, management, research methods, environmental hazards, theoretical framing, research dissemination and communication, Geography, research evaluation and metrics, environmental health, knowledge management, mental health and wellbeing, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Site Management, Research Practice, Human Resources, Geographical Context, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here