ArticleRevista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT
Psychosocial risks at work: integrative review and conceptual perspectives.
Article in Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychosocial risks in Latin America: trends and research gaps.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Workplace harassment and violence in the public sector: an integrative literature review.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMTArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents an integrative review of the scientific literature on psychosocial risks in the workplace. Its aim is to critically examine existing definitions, identify conceptual convergences and divergences, and propose a more comprehensive and operational understanding of the phenomenon. A total of 24 empirical articles published between 2017 and 2021 were analyzed from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The analysis revealed significant conceptual variation, reflecting diverse theoretical and contextual perspectives. A frequent confusion was observed between the terms "psychosocial risks" (referring to negative health outcomes) and "psychosocial risk factors" (the specific conditions that lead to those outcomes), which complicates practical implementation. Thus, an integrative definition was developed, emphasizing the complex interaction among structural, organizational, social, and individual conditions as well as subjective and contextual elements. The study also proposes a practical approach to operationalize this definition, integrating validated quantitative tools (e.g., Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, Job Content Questionnaire, iWorkHealth) with qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. The importance of clearly distinguishing between psychosocial risks, risk factors, and protective factors is underscored to support more effective organizational interventions. This review offers a significant contribution to the conceptual and operational clarity surrounding psychosocial risks, laying a solid foundation for practical application and fostering improvements in occupational health and workplace well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.