Antecedents of Workplace Psychological Safety in Public Safety and Frontline Healthcare: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace psychological safety (PS) has been recognized as crucial in mitigating organizational stressors and enhancing positive workplace outcomes, particularly in high-risk occupations such as healthcare and public safety. This scoping review aims to synthesize the existing literature on psychological safety in high-risk workplaces to identify key antecedents, workplace enhancements, and research gaps. A systematic search of studies published between 2010 and January 2025 was conducted across multiple databases, including CINAHL, Medline, ERIC, JSTOR, PsycInfo, Business Source Ultimate, and Sociological Abstract. Inclusion criteria focused on adult workers in high-risk workplace environments. Following screening and eligibility assessments, 16 studies from six countries were selected for analysis. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed based on leadership styles, organizational structures, and workplace culture related to psychological safety. The review identified three primary antecedents of psychological safety in high-risk workplaces: (1) inclusive and transformational leadership styles, (2) hierarchical structures and power dynamics, and (3) workplace climate and communication culture. Studies consistently found that inclusive leadership, ethical integrity, and transformational leadership were strongly associated with higher psychological safety levels. While hierarchical structures provided the necessary organization, overly rigid hierarchies often suppressed employee voice and innovation. A workplace culture characterized by trust, transparency, and open communication fosters greater psychological safety and improved teamwork and well-being.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".