ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Managing psychosocial hazards in the workplace: how to link frequency and severity using risk matrices.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Evaluating and prioritizing psychosocial hazards remains a challenge for both scientists and practitioners. In contrast to traditional chemical or physical risk assessment methods, psychosocial assessments generally do not record health‑related outcomes for prioritization or severity evaluation, but infer associations probabilistically at the population level. The risk-matrix approach (RMA) addresses these limitations by structuring prioritization around exposure levels and the magnitude of associated health-related impairment. However, the RMA has not yet been applied systematically to psychosocial risk assessment. Methods: We developed a risk-matrix-based prioritization framework using the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Psychosocial hazards were represented on the COPSOQ's exposure scale and compared across several exposure levels from low to very high. Harm was captured with three health-related outcomes ranging from proximal cognitive stress responses to more distal indicators of burnout and general health. Using data from a German steel company ( Results: Across outcomes, higher hazard exposure was associated with greater cognitive stress symptoms, higher burnout, and poorer general health. Associations were strongest for hazards such as detrimental environmental conditions, work-privacy conflict, and emotional demands, yielding substantial model-implied outcome differences at moderate to high exposure levels. Discussion: For subsequent risk-mitigation interventions, psychosocial hazards can be prioritised based on their model-implied health impact across exposure levels rather than single cut-offs. This work advances the RMA framework by integrating health-related outcomes directly into psychosocial risk prioritisation in applied settings and underscores.
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.