Psychosocial risks at work: a growing problem with theoretical ambiguities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2024867Keywords:
Occupational Health, Occupational Health Nursing, Models, Theoretical, Occupational RisksAbstract
Introduction: prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, workers were exposed to psychosocial risks that were aggravated, negatively impacting their health. This has generated a boom in its study; however, theoretical ambiguities persist.
Objective: to explain the theoretical ambiguity present in the study of psychosocial risks at work.
Methods: the analytical article explores the theoretical ambiguity of psychosocial risks in the workplace. It incorporates various sources of information, including classical authors and contemporary approaches. Additionally, the authors offer critical insights and provide considerations for future research in the field.
Result: there is a theoretical-conceptual ambiguity in the study of psychosocial risks at work. It is recommended: 1. To generate less abstract conceptual proposals to address semantic confusion and lack of taxonomic clarity. 2. Adopt an interdisciplinary conceptual approach that includes perspectives from psychology, sociology, and occupational health nursing. 3. Incorporate qualitative methodologies instead of continuing to use quantitative approaches, questioning the appropriateness of measuring a construct with traditional methods that have theoretical omissions. 4. develop unifying theoretical proposals.
Conclusions: there is an urgent need for integrative theoretical proposals. In the opinion of the present authors, these proposals should have a low level of abstraction and include interdisciplinary perspectives that transcend psychology and sociology, as well as use qualitative methodologies
References
1. Comité Mixto OIT-OMS. Factores psicosociales en el trabajo: naturaleza, incidencia y prevención. Ginebra: OIT/OMS; 1984. 85 p.
2. Oficina Internacional del Trabajo. Seguridad y salud en el centro del futuro del trabajo. Primera ed. Ginebra: OIT; 2019. 86 p.
3. Franklin P, Gkiouleka A. A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(5):2453. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052453
4. Valencia-Contrera M, Rivera-Rojas F. The need to redefine psychosocial risks at work. Work [Internet]. 2022;75(1):363-363. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-220574
5. Pujol-Cols L, Lazzaro-Salazar M. Ten Years of Research on Psychosocial Risks, Health, and Performance in Latin America: A comprehensive Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Rev Psicol del Trab y las Organ [Internet]. 2021;37(3):187–202. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a18
6. Karasek RA. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Adm Sci Q [Internet]. 1979;24(2):285-308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
7. Johnson J. The impact of workplace social support, job demands and work control. University of Stockholm; 1986.
8. Johnson J V, Hall EM. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 1988;78(10):1336–42. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.78.10.1336
9. Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol [Internet]. 1996;1(1):27–41. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27
10. Siegrist J. The Effort–Reward Imbalance Model. In: The Handbook of Stress and Health: A Guide to Research and Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017. p. 24–35.
11. Siegrist J. Effort-Reward Imbalance Model. In: Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior [Internet]. Elsevier; 2016. p. 81–6.
12. Juárez García A, Camacho Ávila A. Factores psicosociales de la salud en el trabajo: análisis de su concepción y base teórica. In: Reflexiones teórico-conceptuales de lo psicosocial en el trabajo. México: Univerisdad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos; 2011.
13. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health [Internet]. 2005;31(6):438–49. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.948
14. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health [Internet]. 2010;38(3_suppl):8–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809349858
15. Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, et al. The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Saf Health Work [Internet]. 2019;10(4):482–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002
16. Harvey SB, Modini M, Joyce S, Milligan-Saville JS, Tan L, Mykletun A, et al. Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occup Environ Med [Internet]. 2017;74(4):301–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2016-104015
17. Delgadillo G. Factores psicosociales. Una crítica a su definición. In: Reflexiones teórico-conceptuales de lo psicosocial en el trabajo. México: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos; 2011. p. 77–93.
18. Iavicoli S, Di Tecco C. The management of psychosocial risks at work: state of the art and future perspectives. Med Lav. 2020;111(5):335–50. https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v111i5.10679
19. Vazquez ACS, Pianezolla M, Hutz CS. Assessment of psychosocial factors at work: A systematic review. Estud Psicol [Internet]. 2018;35(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000100002
20. Rodrigues CML, Faiad C, Facas EP. Fatores de Risco e Riscos Psicossociais no Trabalho: Definição e Implicações. Psicol Teor e Pesqui [Internet]. 2020;36(spe). https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e36nspe19
21. Coutinho H, Queirós C, Henriques A, Norton P, Alves E. Work-related determinants of psychosocial risk factors among employees in the hospital setting. Work [Internet]. 2019;61(4):551–60. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-182825
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Miguel Valencia-Contrera, Flérida Rivera-Rojas, Naldy Febré (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
