Sources of occupational stress in UK construction projects: an empirical investigation and agenda for future research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While stress, anxiety and depression rank as the second leading cause of work-related ill health in the UK construction sector, there exists a scarcity of empirical studies explicitly focused on investigating the sources of occupational stress among construction workers and professionals at both the construction project and supply chain levels. This study seeks to identify and investigate the primary stressors (sources of stress) in UK construction projects and to propose effective strategies for preventing or reducing stress in this context. Design/methodology/approach The study adopted a qualitative multi-methods research approach, comprising the use of a comprehensive literature review, case study interviews and a focus group. It utilised an integrated deductive-inductive approach theory building using NVivo software. In total, 19 in-depth interviews were conducted as part of the case-study with a well-rounded sample of construction professionals and trade supervisors, followed by a focus group with 12 policy influencers and sector stakeholders to evaluate the quality and transferability of the findings of the study. Findings The results reveal seven main stressors and 35 influencing factors within these 7 areas of stress in a UK construction project, with “workflow interruptions” emerging as the predominant stressor. In addition, the results of the focus-group, which was conducted with a sample of 12 prominent industry experts and policy influencers, indicate that the findings of the case study are transferrable and could be applicable to other construction projects and contexts. It is, therefore, recommended that these potential stressors be addressed by the project team as early as possible in construction projects. Additionally, the study sheds empirical light on the limitations of the critical path method and identifies “inclusive and collaborative planning” as a proactive strategy for stress prevention and/or reduction in construction projects. Research limitations/implications The findings of this study are mainly based on the perspectives of construction professionals at managerial and supervisory levels. It is, therefore, suggested that future studies are designed to focus on capturing the experiences and opinions of construction workers/operatives on the site. Practical implications The findings from this study have the potential to assist decision-makers in the prevention of stress within construction projects, ultimately enhancing workforce performance. It is suggested that the findings could be adapted for use as Construction Supply Chain Management Standards to improve occupational stress management and productivity in construction projects. The study also provides decision-makers and practitioners with a conceptual framework that includes a list of effective strategies for stress prevention or reduction at both project and organisational levels. It also contributes to practice by offering novel ideas for incorporating occupational stress and mental health considerations into production planning and control processes in construction. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first, or one of the very few studies, to explore the concept of occupational stress in construction at the project and supply chain levels. It is also the first study to reveal “workflow” as a predominant stressor in construction projects. It is, therefore, suggested that both academic and industry efforts should focus on finding innovative ways to enhance workflow and collaboration in construction projects, to improve the productivity, health and well-being of their workforce and supply chain. Further, it is suggested that policymakers should consider the potential for incorporating “workflow” into the HSE's Management Standards for stress prevention and management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it