Langdon, R R; Bradley, L; Newton, C J and Sawang, S (2024) The potential for workplaces to provide social support for distressed infrastructure workers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(12): 04024171, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Infrastructure workers experience high rates of psychological distress and suicide. Social capital (e.g., co-workers, friends, family) and social support (e.g., emotional, practical, informational) help to minimize distress. This study explores how social capital and social support contribute to psychological distress and if accessing social capital to provide social support is different for distressed compared to non-distressed workers. A sample of 220 infrastructure workers recruited online from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America was used. The study explored social capital (sum and diversity) along with social support and who the workers would approach first for each type of social support. It found that increased social capital was associated with higher distress, whereas lower social support was associated with higher distress. The primary contribution of this research indicates that although distressed infrastructure workers have more social capital available, they may not be obtaining the necessary social support needed from their networks. Also, as some distressed workers indicated they approach work colleagues to receive some types of social support, there may be an opportunity for workplaces to provide social support to co-workers to alleviate the gap in support and help improve psychological well-being.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure workers; mental health; social capital; social support |
| Index terms: | distress, United States of America, Canada, mental health, United Kingdom, well-being, psychological distress, suicide, social capital |
| Subjects: | sociology, structural engineering, Geography, environmental health, health conditions and diseases, mental health and wellbeing |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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