Physical and Psychosocial Correlates of Occupational Physical Injury in the Global Construction Industry: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The construction industry is a diverse sector with exposure to multiple psychosocial and environmental workplace hazards that increase the risk of injury. This scoping review aims to consolidate the existing literature on the physical and psychosocial determinants influencing the risk of occupational physical injuries among construction workers globally. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA extension checklist guided. Literature searches were performed between June and October 2023 in electronic academic databases. Results: A total of 77 studies were identified, encompassing various geographical regions, including North America (n = 29), Africa (n = 18), Europe (n = 12), Asia (n = 9), the Middle East (n = 5), and Oceania (n = 4). The review identified physical and psychosocial factors in 3 domains influencing occupational physical injuries: workplace physical environment (eg, exposure to physical hazards, availability and utilization of personal protective equipment, company size, and job type), workplace culture (eg, psychosocial stressors, gender-related barriers, migrant and ethnic disparities, educational background), and physical wellbeing, health and aging (eg, age, obesity, sleep quality, marital stats, and physical health status). Notably, workers from social minority groups (eg, women, ethnic and migrant workers) of young (<25 years old) or older ages (45-55 years old) employed in smaller construction companies are vulnerable to increased injury risk and exposure to physical and psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Conclusion: The review emphasizes a global paucity of research examining the implications of physical and psychosocial factors on injury risk within the construction industry. Future research should prioritize investigating the impact of psychosocial hazards on younger and older workers to detect age-related differences in injury rate, treatment access, and work-related health outcomes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".