ReviewScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2026
Occupational exposure limits for psychosocial hazards: A promising concept or a premature leap?
Review in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perfection should not hinder progress towards occupational exposure limits for psychosocial hazards: A reply to Guseva Canu and van der Molen.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe critically examined the proposal to establish occupational exposure limits (OEL) for psychosocial hazards, evaluating its scientific feasibility, methodological challenges, and implications for occupational health practice.
methodsWe reviewed the conceptual framework and recommendations by Pauli et al and compared them with established approaches for chemical and physical hazards. Key obstacles were analyzed, including the reliance on latent constructs, terminological ambiguity, and the absence of objective exposure metrics, while considering the advent of the exposome in epidemiology, emerging technologies and political economy factors.
resultsOur analysis shows that analogies with physical and chemical OEL offer useful insights but cannot be directly applied to psychosocial hazards. Unlike traditional hazards, psychosocial hazards are context-dependent, socially constructed, and often measured through self-reported surveys, limiting the derivation of adverse effect levels. Current psychosocial models of occupational stress aggregate diverse stressors under broad constructs, impeding actionable risk assessment. While organizational hazards such as shift work and long working hours can be objectively quantified using human resource data and sensors, social and moral dimensions remain elusive. Individual biomarkers might not offer adequate diagnostic value, while using multiple biomarkers in combination introduces challenges related to cost and feasibility. Furthermore, regulatory decisions are shaped by economic interests and stakeholder conflicts, complicating consensus and OEL adoption.
conclusionsA paradigm shift is required: moving from generic theoretical models to specific, measurable indicators, integrating multi-source data, and harmonizing methodologies. Without this transformation, OEL risk over-simplifying complex psychosocial phenomena and failing to achieve meaningful preventive outcomes. For occupational safety and health practice, work organizations should prioritize the more specific identification and measurement of psychosocial hazards, using context-specific data and harmonized methods, to enable more effective risk management and prevention, pending the establishment of formal occupational exposure limits for psychosocial hazards.
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.