Valeria Pavlista

Background: Psychosocial hazards are increasingly recognised as critical factors affecting employee health, safety, and well-being, arising from how work is designed, organised, and managed. In the European Union, employers are legally obliged to address these hazards as part of workplace risk assessment. While much is known about what constitutes a psychosocial hazard, the core risk management steps—assessment, mitigation, and control—are addressed only scarcely and inconsistently across studies and practices. This limits current understanding of how these steps contribute to reducing the risk of psychosocial hazards, hindering efforts to evaluate effectiveness and guide future research. This scoping review aims to map current knowledge related to these three foundational steps and explore their role in overall risk management. Methods: Guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR recommendations, this scoping review will be divided into three sub-reviews, each focusing on one step in psychosocial risk management: assessment, mitigation, and control. Comprehensive searches will be conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, PSYNDEX, and APA PsycINFO for peer-reviewed publications since 2000 aligning with the EU legal framework. Grey literature sources will also be explored. Two independent reviewers will perform a multi-stage screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction will capture study characteristics, methods, and findings related to the three risk management steps. Narrative synthesis and tabular summaries will be used to present results, delineate knowledge gaps, and inform research and practice. Discussion: This review will provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge on the assessment, mitigation, and control of psychosocial hazards, while identifying key research gaps. Its findings aim to inform policymakers, practitioners, and researchers on strategies to enhance worker well-being and support cohesive risk management. Although the EU focus enables an in-depth look at regulation-driven approaches, it may limit generalisability to non-EU contexts. Additionally, the scoping methodology, which prioritizes breadth over depth, will not allow for full evaluation of methodological quality or effectiveness. Nonetheless, the review will serve as a foundational map of the current state of psychosocial risk assessment and management, fostering dialogue and guiding future global research efforts. Systematic review registration: OSF number osf.io/t5cnu. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GNAMH .

Background: Modern work environments constitute an underrepresented part of psychosocial risk assessments at work. Little is known about whether there is an increased stress load at all and what possible improvements could be made in such a case. Methods: Modern work environments were assessed in an online questionnaire in 33 companies across a period of more than 4 years. A total of 3431 employees participated in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative data was applied to obtain a differentiated picture. Results: Increased stress caused by modern work environments was an issue for around a third of the sample. 31.6% of the participants at least sometimes struggled to balance work and private life. Quite a few of the participants (36.3%) worked sometimes or more outside regular working hours. For 32.4% of participants, the workload has increased due to new technologies, but for 30.4% it has not. The majority (81.4%) feel they can work productively in home offices. The data from 178 completed free text fields on improving modern work environments from the employees’ perspective was analysed. Many named suggestions relate to improvements in time management. Conclusion: This study provides both detailed insights into various aspects of modern work environments and offers solutions to counteract possible negative consequences. Assessing modern work environments in psychosocial risk assessments would be a valuable addition to its completeness.

According to the legal requirements in many countries, companies should conduct psychosocial risk assessments (PRA). However, recent studies have demonstrated deficiencies in PRA implementation. Especially micro- and small-sized enterprises (MSE) are in arrears. We conducted two explorative studies to shed light on this topic: We recruited MSE and examined their reasons for participation ( N = 7) and nonparticipation ( N = 21) in a nonresponder survey. Further, we analyzed longitudinal data capturing the PRA process over 18 months in 15 MSE within a case study. The attitude that stress is an important issue was a major reason for participation. The reasons given for nonparticipation were lack of interest in PRA and lack of stress. High time commitment and support were needed for complete PRA implementation. The reasons given for termination included low resources and prioritization of PRA. The results indicate that interest and awareness of the relevance of psychosocial stress need to increase, and that approaches requiring fewer resources are needed.

Background: Workplace-related stress is a major risk factor for mental and physical health problems and related sickness absence and productivity loss. Despite evidence regarding the effectiveness of different workplace-based interventions, the implementation of stress prevention interventions is rare, especially in micro and small-sized enterprises (MSE) with fewer than 50 employees. The joint research project “PragmatiKK”⁺ aims to identify and address the specific barriers to the implementation of stress prevention interventions in MSE. This study protocol describes a mixed method study design to evaluate the effectiveness of adapted stress prevention interventions and the implementation process via an integrated web-based platform (“System P”) specifically targeted at MSE. Methods: First, we develop a web-based intervention, which accounts for the specific working conditions in MSE and addresses stress prevention at a structural and behavioral level. Second, we use common methods of implementation research to perform an effect and process evaluation. We analyze the effectiveness of the web-based stress prevention interventions by comparing depressive symptoms at baseline and follow-up (after 6 months and 12 months). Indicators for a successful implementation process include acceptability, adoption, feasibility, reach, dose, and fidelity, which we will measure with quantitative web-based questionnaires and qualitative interviews. We will also analyze the accumulated usage data from the web-based platform. Discussion: Collecting data on the implementation process and the effectiveness of a web-based intervention will help to identify and overcome common barriers to stress prevention in MSE. This can improve the mental health of employees in MSE, which constitute more than 90% of all enterprises in Germany. ⁺ Full Project Name: „PragmatiKK - Pragmatische Lösungen für die Implementation von Maßnahmen zur Stressprävention in Kleinst- und Kleinbetrieben “(= Pragmatic solutions for the implementation of stress prevention interventions in micro and small-sized enterprises). Trial registration: German Register of Clinical Studies (DRKS): DRKS00026154, date of registration: 2021-09-16.

Background: The negative effect of unfavorable working conditions and long-term work stress on health has been demonstrated in previous research. To address these challenges, systematic approaches such as psychosocial risk assessments (PRA) have been developed in many countries worldwide. Despite legal obligations, psychosocial risk assessments are rarely carried out in micro and small-sized enterprises (MSE). Even though those enterprises constitute a large proportion of the general workforce, this area remains largely untouched by research. In order to enable starting points for a greater dissemination in organizational practice, the present study explores barriers and drivers of psychosocial risk assessments in micro and small-sized enterprises. Methods: A total of 18 owners and managers from 15 micro and small-sized enterprises in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. A qualitative approach was applied: Content analysis was used to analyze the data, using deductive as well as inductive coding techniques. Results: The following barriers emerged from the interviews: Negative PRA image, stigmatization of mental health, lacking acceptance of employees, fear of excessive authority interference, ignorance of PRA, not understanding the necessity, inappropriate approach, and limited resources. The identified drivers were: Easy access to PRA material, external support from experts, renaming the term “workplace risk assessment”, understanding content and benefit of PRA, simplify and revise PRA process, and noticeable consequences of PRA execution and non-execution. The results are comparable with those in larger companies. They emphasize the importance of mental health education, improving the process of psychosocial risk assessments, and the ongoing support in overcoming limited financial as well as human resources. Conclusions: To improve implementation of PRA in organizational practice, a simplification of the process is proposed, accompanied by information campaigns and an improvement in the health literacy of owners and managers of MSE. In view of the results, the full revision of the PRA approach should also be considered.