Psychosocial Hazards in the Northern Territory Building and Construction Industry: A Profile of Job Demands and Job Resources in a Jurisdiction and Industry with High Rates of Suicide

Abstract

The work environment for building workers in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT) is characterised by concerningly high rates of distress and suicide at both a jurisdictional and an industry level. Work-related psychosocial hazards are known antecedents of work-related distress and suicide, and more research is required to understand how these hazards impact workers in this unique building context. This paper examines the unique work environment in the NT building industry by comparing psychosocial hazards in the NT with those in the broader Australian building and construction industry. When comparing 330 NT self-report survey responses about psychosocial hazards in the workplace to 773 broader Australian building industry responses, supervisor task conflict for NT workers was more concerning, at 10.9% higher than the broader Australian cohort. Within the NT sample, comparisons between fly-in and fly-out/drive-in and drive-out (FIFO/DIDO) workers and non-FIFO/DIDO workers were also performed to determine specific local psychosocial hazards. When comparing FIFO/DIDO workers’ responses to their NT peers, role overload and supervisor task conflict were significantly higher, and co-worker and supervisor support were lower. In FIFO/DIDO environments, praise and recognition, procedural justice, and change consultation were at concerningly lower averages than the broader NT building and construction industry. These results suggest that the NT building and construction industry, and particularly FIFO/DIDO operations, require greater resourcing, investment, and focus on workplace mental health initiatives to improve the work environment and wellbeing of this workforce and mitigate hazards that can lead to distress and the high rates of occupational suicide found in this jurisdiction and industry.

Full text

Citation: Thompson, N.; Robertson, A.;
Loudoun, R.; Biggs, A.; Townsend, K.
Psychosocial Hazards in the Northern
Territory Building and Construction
Industry: A Profile of Job Demands
and Job Resources in a Jurisdiction and
Industry with High Rates of Suicide.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,
21, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph21030334
Academic Editor: Fidelis A. Emuze
Received: 29 January 2024
Revised: 5 March 2024
Accepted: 7 March 2024
Published: 12 March 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Psychosocial Hazards in the Northern Territory Building
and Construction Industry: A Profile of Job Demands and
Job Resources in a Jurisdiction and Industry with High
Rates of Suicide
Nicholas Thompson 1, Adam Robertson 2, * , Rebecca Loudoun 2, Amanda Biggs 2and Keith Townsend 2
1MATES in Construction, Spring Hill, QLD 4004, Australia; nthompson@mates.org.au
2Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia;
r.loudoun@griffith.edu.au (R.L.); a.biggs@griffith.edu.au (A.B.); k.townsend@griffith.edu.au (K.T.)
*Correspondence: a.robertson@griffith.edu.au
Abstract: The work environment for building workers in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT) is
characterised by concerningly high rates of distress and suicide at both a jurisdictional and an in-
dustry level. Work-related psychosocial hazards are known antecedents of work-related distress
and suicide, and more research is required to understand how these hazards impact workers in this
unique building context. This paper examines the unique work environment in the NT building
industry by comparing psychosocial hazards in the NT with those in the broader Australian building
and construction industry. When comparing 330 NT self-report survey responses about psychosocial
hazards in the workplace to 773 broader Australian building industry responses, supervisor task
conflict for NT workers was more concerning, at 10.9% higher than the broader Australian cohort.
Within the NT sample, comparisons between fly-in and fly-out/drive-in and drive-out (FIFO/DIDO)
workers and non-FIFO/DIDO workers were also performed to determine specific local psychosocial
hazards. When comparing FIFO/DIDO workers’ responses to their NT peers, role overload and
supervisor task conflict were significantly higher, and co-worker and supervisor support were lower.
In FIFO/DIDO environments, praise and recognition, procedural justice, and change consultation
were at concerningly lower averages than the broader NT building and construction industry. These
results suggest that the NT building and construction industry, and particularly FIFO/DIDO oper-
ations, require greater resourcing, investment, and focus on workplace mental health initiatives to
improve the work environment and wellbeing of this workforce and mitigate hazards that can lead
to distress and the high rates of occupational suicide found in this jurisdiction and industry.
Keywords: psychosocial hazards; work health and safety; suicide prevention; job control; supervisor
task conflict; peer support; fly-in fly-out; drive-in drive-out; building; construction
1. Introduction
The impact of work-related psychosocial hazards on workers’ mental health is a
serious work health and safety issue, requiring government, industry, and site-based in-
vestment. Psychosocial hazards in Australian workplaces are regulated through State and
Territory jurisdictions with differing localised responses [
1
]. As a jurisdiction, the Northern
Territory (NT) faces unique challenges and opportunities in formulating responses to the
management and understanding of these work environment stressors. The NT’s small
demographic size and decentralised population adds complexity to this management [
1
].
The NT and the Australian building and construction industry, more broadly, have ju-
risdictional and occupational rates of distress and suicide that are concerningly high [
2
].
This finding emphasises our need to better understand workers’ levels of exposure to
different psychosocial hazards, which are known precursors of distress and suicide [
3
,
4
].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030334 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 2 of 15
This article examines exposure to several psychosocial hazards self-reported by building
and construction workers in the NT, in comparison with a broader cohort of building and
construction workers throughout Australia, with the aim of identifying any unique factors
in the industry that relate to the NT’s construction workforce and how it may require
localised industry responses. This understanding will inform the development of targeted
intervention strategies to improve mental health within the NT building environment.
Using an existing industry-devised and endorsed framework, called the Blueprint for
Better Mental Health and Suicide Prevention in the Building and Construction Industry
(the Blueprint), the “Reduce Harmful Impacts of Work” domain within the Blueprint (refer
to Figure 1) was investigated in this research [
5
,
6
]. The Blueprint framework, developed
in 2016 and operationalised by MATES in Construction since 2019, is the overarching tool
used by the industry to gauge the effectiveness and need for workplace mental health
and suicide prevention initiatives [
5
,
6
]. The “Reduce Harmful Impacts of Work” domain
aims to address work-related psychosocial hazards, which are known precursors of mental
ill-health and suicide. Psychosocial hazards, also referred to as work-related stressors, are
defined in line with job demands–resources (JD-R)theory [
7
] and occur when workers have
insufficient job resources to meet their high job demands.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15
finding emphasises our need to better understand workers’ levels of exposure to different
psychosocial hazards, which are known precursors of distress and suicide [3,4]. This arti-
cle examines exposure to several psychosocial hazards self-reported by building and con-
struction workers in the NT, in comparison with a broader cohort of building and con-
struction workers throughout Australia, with the aim of identifying any unique factors in
the industry that relate to the NT’s construction workforce and how it may require local-
ised industry responses. This understanding will inform the development of targeted in-
tervention strategies to improve mental health within the NT building environment.
Using an existing industry-devised and endorsed framework, called the Blueprint
for Better Mental Health and Suicide Prevention in the Building and Construction Indus-
try (the Blueprint), the “Reduce Harmful Impacts of Work” domain within the Blueprint
(refer to Figure 1) was investigated in this research [5,6]. The Blueprint framework, devel-
oped in 2016 and operationalised by MATES in Construction since 2019, is the overarching
tool used by the industry to gauge the effectiveness and need for workplace mental health
and suicide prevention initiatives [5,6]. The “Reduce Harmful Impacts of Work” domain
aims to address work-related psychosocial hazards, which are known precursors of men-
tal ill-health and suicide. Psychosocial hazards, also referred to as work-related stressors,
are defined in line with job demands–resources (JD-R)theory [7] and occur when workers
have insufficient job resources to meet their high job demands.
Figure 1. The five-pillar model for mental health interventions in the workplace in the building and
construction industry (the Blueprint).
1.1. Suicide, Work-Related Stress, Distress, and Self-Harm in the Northern Territory
This research aims to better understand the levels of exposure to different psychoso-
cial hazards within the NT building industry, which will inform the future development
of targeted intervention strategies. This is a necessary step towards effectively addressing
the concerning levels of distress and suicide within the NT, which is the highest of any
Figure 1. The five-pillar model for mental health interventions in the workplace in the building and
construction industry (the Blueprint).
1.1. Suicide, Work-Related Stress, Distress, and Self-Harm in the Northern Territory
This research aims to better understand the levels of exposure to different psychosocial
hazards within the NT building industry, which will inform the future development of
targeted intervention strategies. This is a necessary step towards effectively addressing the
concerning levels of distress and suicide within the NT, which is the highest of any jurisdic-
tion in Australia [
8
]. Exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards is a contributing factor
to suicide, acknowledged by the NT Government, which has specific plans and strategies
for prevention to stem these unnecessary deaths [
9
]. The NT has several all-of-government
approaches to suicide prevention, including dedicated funded services, such as MATES

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 3 of 15
in Construction, to improve workplace mental health [
10
]. Localised responses from NT
leaders and experts in suicide prevention and mental health also identify the role that
workplaces have in the wellbeing of workers and the protective factors attached to work
that can mitigate mental ill-health and suicide [
11
]. Critical to suicide prevention and
workplace mental health initiatives in the NT is the use of local knowledge and experience
in the design and formation of responses [
12
]. NT-specific trends in workplace mental
health stressors largely relate to industry-specific workforces in the fields of health, social
services, and government, where most NT residents are employed [
13
]. The building and
construction workforce, however, does not have the same level of understanding of the
collective industry’s work environment and associated mental health hazards. Where there
is evidence, it is of a secondary nature; for example, focusing on the impacts of management
styles with a view to increase productivity in local NT construction projects [
14
]. This
evidence is strengthened by project-specific and trade-specific knowledge in managing the
rostering in larger NT projects [
15
]. The substantial economic and human costs, including
mental ill-health, of suicide in the building and construction industry from the perspective
of cost and wellbeing is evidenced by Doran, Ling, and Milner [
16
]. Their study indicates a
significant cost, separate from the collective community’s grief, of an incident of self-harm
in the building and construction industry [
16
]. Doran, Ling, Milner, and Kinchin suggest
that each fatality from self-harm and suicide results in a cost of AUD $2.72 million to the
Northern Territory, with the government covering 97% of that cost [
17
]. The rates of suicide
for male NT construction workers, from 2001–2019, have remained higher compared to
suicide rates for males outside the building and construction industry [
18
]. Whilst the data
available to make this analysis are modest and have multiple variables, they do imply an
increase in the rates of suicide for construction workers in the NT over this period [
18
].
Although evidence demonstrates that high rates of suicide in the NT building and con-
struction industry is a concern, the relationships between suicide and psychosocial hazards
require further exploration.
1.2. Psychosocial Hazards in the Northern Territory Building and Construction Work Environment
According to JD-R theory, work-related psychosocial hazards are present when work-
ers experience high job demands and low job resources [
7
]. Chronic exposure to high
levels of job demands, such as work overload, long hours, role ambiguity, and conflict,
exhausts workers’ physical and emotional energy, leading to burnout and mental ill-health.
Job resources, such as job control and social support, are the aspects of work that enable
workers to meet their job demands, achieve their goals, and promote personal and pro-
fessional growth. Substantial research conducted in a variety of occupational groups has
demonstrated that insufficient job resources in the presence of high job demands leads to
mental ill-health, low morale, and poor performance [
19
]. Furthermore, the influential role
of “upstream factors” such as leadership behaviours and organisational culture in shaping
this connection has been well established (e.g., [20]).
Research conducted within the building and construction industry has also demon-
strated support for the key tenets of JD-R theory (e.g., [
21
,
22
]). The NT building and
construction industry, as part of the broader global construction industry, has evidenced
and known workplace mental health stressors. High job demands, combined with low
levels of job resources, such as poor supervisory relationships and peer support, produce
high levels of stress that requires specific attention in the industry [
5
,
6
]. The extant literature
applying JD-R theory has also established that low levels of job control is a primary and
ongoing stressor for building and construction workers [
23
]. Similarly, role ambiguity and
poor relationships are strong features of stress in the construction work environment [
24
].
Peer support and the perception of an understanding and trustworthy work environment
is an additional known protective factor for workplace mental health [
25
]. This point is
further evidenced in the experiences of workers themselves; having trusted and reliable
peers and established relationships is known to strengthen construction workers’ sense of

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 4 of 15
support and community when facing mental health adversity or distress [
25
]. Further to
this sense of support, there are fewer negative perceptions of reprimand, blame, or vul-
nerability in needing support or assistance from trusted peers when disclosing workplace
mental health challenges [
26
]. Specific construction projects in the NT that have long been
completed and had a problematic workplace mental health record add to this body of
evidence [
15
]. Factors associated with these problematic ways of structuring the work
environment, whilst historical, demonstrate the need to factor in the transient nature of
many construction workers in the NT and the impact of fly-in and fly-out or drive-in and
drive-out work (FIFO/DIDO) [
27
]. While more research is needed, there is some evidence
to suggest that working under FIFO/DIDO and subcontractor working arrangements is
linked with a higher exposure to psychosocial hazards and poorer mental health. Research
has demonstrated that FIFO/DIDO workers report high levels of psychological distress,
suicide intent, and rates of death-by-suicide [28–30].
As with the rise in FIFO/DIDO operations, the utilisation of subcontractor relation-
ships is becoming increasingly important within the building and construction industry.
Limited research understanding the impact of subcontractor relationships on workers’
mental health has been conducted; nonetheless, it does suggest that subcontractors experi-
ence a heightened risk of physical and psychosocial hazards at work due to the precarious
nature of their employment. For instance, Valluru and colleagues [
31
] reviewed research
demonstrating that subcontractor employees are at higher risk of injury, are subjected to
different work pressures, are less protected by institutional safety mechanisms and regula-
tory actions, and undertake riskier work. Their qualitative study specified three categories
of factors that were discussed as reasons why subcontractor employees experience safety
differently to other employees: fixed conditions (e.g., project, workforce, industry regu-
lations, collective organisation); on-site conditions (e.g., leadership, trust, isolated teams,
goals/expectations, and commercial arrangements); and outcomes (e.g., project risk, site
safety, and mental wellbeing). Of most interest to the current research were the findings
that included a higher presence of psychosocial hazards, such as poor leadership, and
the compounding issue of precarious employment within an occupation that is already at
higher risk of mental ill-health and suicide [31].
This paper aims to improve our knowledge of the levels of psychosocial hazards
experienced by workers within the NT building and construction industry, compared to
the Australian building and construction industry more broadly. This understanding is a
necessary step toward developing localised, targeted intervention responses. Addressing
work-related psychosocial hazards is important, given their impact on a range of adverse
outcomes, including poor productivity, mental health, and suicide. As demonstrated, these
are at alarmingly high levels within the NT building and construction industry, requiring
localised and targeted responses. On this basis, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: NT participants will report significantly higher job demands and significantly lower
job resources than workers in the broader Australian building and construction industry.
Amongst the NT participants, it is also expected that those working within FIFO/DIDO
settings will also be exposed to greater psychosocial hazards, given the unique FIFO/DIDO
working environment.
Hypothesis 2: NT participants working within FIFO/DIDO settings will report significantly
higher job demands and significantly lower job resources than non-FIFO/DIDO workers.
Finally, amongst the NT participants, it is also expected that subcontractors will be
exposed to greater psychosocial hazards.
Hypothesis 3: NT participants working as subcontractors will report significantly higher job
demands and significantly lower job resources than non-subcontractors.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 5 of 15
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample
Data were collected from building and construction workers across 21 construction
sites within all Australian States and Territories from August 2022 to April 2023 (MATES
in Construction 2022–2023 Data Collection Period). To increase the generalisability of the
results, participants were recruited from various principal contractors and subcontractors
across the industry, including commercial, residential, civil construction, and interior
fit-out organisations. These organisations represent many of Australia’s most common
construction works [
32
]. General invitations to participate in the research were made
by MATES in Construction field officers during toolbox talks and industry awareness
information sessions held across the sites either before the commencement of work or at an
assigned time prescribed by the principal contractor of that site. Participation was voluntary,
with information sheets explaining the non-compulsory nature and confidentiality attached
to the survey. Surveys were distributed in paper format with the added benefit of collective
peer engagement encouraging anonymity and the need for return.
A total of 1103 completed surveys were returned, including 330 respondents from the
NT and 773 from all the remaining Australian States and Territories. Due to the dynamic
nature of project work on a construction site, it is not possible to determine an exact
response rate. However, daily site reports for each of the 21 construction sites approximate
an overall response rate of around 85%. It was as low as 50% and as high as 100% in
some workplace settings. Individual workgroups had an allocated site contact, normally
a workplace health and safety representative who, after the completion of the surveys,
received an aggregated report with recommendations for an improvement plan if areas
of concern were identified, to assist with the Blueprint alignment of the site or company
undertaking the survey.
2.2. People at Work—Construction Survey (PAW-Con)
Data on psychosocial hazards were gathered using the 36-item People at
Work—Construction
Survey (PAW-Con). The PAW-Con is an empirically validated mea-
sure of the work environment underpinned by JD-R theory [
7
,
33
], and it has been used
previously in research investigating psychosocial hazards within the building and con-
struction industry [
34
]. The PAW-Con survey builds upon existing research from Safe
Work Australia and all State and Territory governments throughout Australia in their
development of the People at Work (PAW) survey [
35
]. The original PAW survey was
modified in a previous two-part study to create a new measure that used appropriate and
congruent language attached to the building and construction industry and evaluated
aspects of work that were unique to the psychosocial factors found in the construction
work environment [33].
The PAW-Con asks participants to report on 11 job demands and job resources relevant
to the construction industry: role overload (4 items;
α
= 0.87; e.g., “I am pressured to work
long hours”), role ambiguity (4 items;
α
= 0.87; e.g., “I am clear what is expected of me on this
job”), role conflict (3 items; α= 0.88; e.g., “Different people on this job expect conflicting things
from me”), job control (3 items;
α
= 0.82; e.g., “I have a choice in deciding what I do on this
job”), co-worker support (3 items;
α
= 0.91; e.g., “If the work gets difficult, my co-workers will
help me”), supervisor support (3 items;
α
= 0.95; e.g., “If the work gets difficult, my direct
supervisor on this job will help me”), supervisor task conflict (3 items;
α
= 0.92; e.g., “I have
conflict with my direct supervisor on this site about the work I do”), supervisor relationship
conflict (3 items;
α
= 0.94; e.g., “There are bad feelings between me and my direct supervisor on
this site”), praise and recognition (3 items;
α
= 0.96; e.g., “My direct supervisor on this job gives
me sufficient credit for my hard work”), procedural justice (3 items;
α
= 0.87; e.g., “Supervisors
consistently follow the policies and procedures set out for this site”), and change consultation
(4 items;
α= 0.89;
e.g., “I am consulted about proposed changes on this job”). All job resource
items were scored on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never)to7(Always), with higher
scores indicating more resources. Job demand items were also scored on a 7-point scale,

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 6 of 15
ranging from 1 (Never)to7(Always); higher scores indicated greater job demands, except
for role ambiguity, where items were subsequently reverse-coded, such that higher scores
indicated greater role ambiguity.
2.3. Statistical Analyses
To establish workplace mental health trends in the NT and compare them against the
broader Australian building and construction work environment, the data were analysed
using a one-way between-groups Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), aiming
to identify significant differences in job demands and job resources among the groups of
interest, such as FIFO/DIDO versus non-FIFO/DIDO employees within the NT, subcon-
tractor versus non-subcontractor employees within the NT, and comparisons between NT
and non-NT employees. Table 1outlines the mean, standard deviation, reliability, and
intercorrelations across all job demands and job resources.
Table 1. Intercorrelations among job demands and job resources.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M SD
1. Role Overload (0.87) 2.69 1.28
2. Role Ambiguity 0.22 ** (0.87) 1.75 0.84
3. Role Conflict 0.54 ** 0.23 ** (0.88) 2.54 1.34
4. Job Control −0.16 ** −0.34 ** −0.12 ** (0.82) 4.57 1.48
5. Co-WorkerSupport −0.29 ** −0.28 ** −0.32 ** 0.34 ** (0.91) 5.73 1.27
6. Supervisor Support −0.33** −0.33 ** −0.35 ** 0.38 ** 0.55 ** (0.95) 5.70 1.41
7. Supervisor TaskConflict 0.33 ** 0.20 ** 0.44 ** −0.07 * −0.24 ** −0.36 ** (0.92) 2.21 1.22
8. Supervisor Relationship Conflict 0.25 ** 0.21 ** 0.39 ** −0.13 ** −0.24 ** −0.42 ** 0.59 ** (0.94) 1.57 0.99
9. Praise and Recognition −0.28 ** −0.34 ** −0.27 ** 0.40 ** 0.45 ** 0.67 ** −0.35 ** −0.36 ** (0.96) 5.22 1.58
10.
Procedural Justice −0.34 ** −0.42 ** −0.38 ** 0.39 ** 0.47 ** 0.69 ** −0.45 ** −0.47 ** 0.67 ** (0.87) 5.78 1.17
11.
Change Consultation −0.35 ** −0.44 ** −0.37 ** 0.42 ** 0.49 ** 0.55 ** −0.33 ** −0.28 ** 0.58 ** 0.66 ** (0.89) 5.17 1.41
Note: N = 1103; reliability coefficients (α) are in parentheses along the diagonal; * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01.
3. Results
3.1. Demographics of Participants
The overall sample of 1103 participants was separated into two distinct samples to
address this study’s aims. The NT cohort consisted of 330 workers employed in the building
and construction industry. Most respondents were male (87%), born in Australia (76%),
had ten or more years of industry experience (57% of employees who reported) and were
an average age of 37 years old. The sample was primarily individuals employed by the
principal contractor (59%) or subcontractors (29%). Employee role descriptions included a
range of positions, such as tradesperson (21%), apprentice (21%), and operator (11%). The
direct supervisor of the respondents was predominately the site manager (35%), followed
by the leading hand (25%) or another manager such as a construction or project manager
(18%). Finally, the sample included 148 employees (45%) from FIFO/DIDO sites.
The broader Australian sample consisted of 773 workers employed in the building and
construction industry throughout all Australian States and Territories (excluding the NT).
Consistent with the NT-based sample, this larger group was also predominantly male (88%),
born in Australia (68%), had ten or more years of industry experience (67% of employees
who reported) and were an average age of 42 years old. They were also employed in
a range of positions, such as tradesperson (30%) and operator (22%), while fewer were
apprentices (1.8%). In contrast to the NT-based sample, the direct supervisor of this group
was predominately the leading hand (27%), and most respondents classified themselves
as subcontractors (49%). The sample also included a larger proportion of FIFO/DIDO
employees (76%).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 7 of 15
3.2. Job Demands within the NT
Upon evaluating the 17 items that gauge the five employee job demands, it is evident
that NT employees (N = 330) largely feel they are navigating through a manageable work en-
vironment. Specifically, they reported relatively low levels of role overload, with an average
score of 2.62 out of 7; role ambiguity at 1.78, role conflict at 2.55, friction with supervisors
about how tasks are completed at 2.37, and relational conflicts with supervisors at 1.63 (the
classification of job demands and job resources as low (1.00–3.00), moderate (3.01–4.99), or
high (5.00–7.00) is in line with industry practice and the People at Work (PAW) comprehen-
sive reporting template (https://www.peopleatwork.gov.au/assets/pdf/People%20at%
20Work%20-%20Comprehensive%20report%20example%20-%20excerpt.pdf (accessed on
14 December 2023))).
3.3. Job Resources within the NT
When looking at how well resourced NT workers felt they were to perform their role,
a reasonably positive picture emerges. Most workers felt they had a moderate level of
control over their jobs, with an average score of 4.60 out of 7. There was also a strong
sense of camaraderie and acknowledgment, as shown by higher scores in areas like co-
worker support (5.70 out of 7), supervisor support (5.72 out of 7), praise and recognition
(5.27 out of 7), procedural justice (5.85 out of 7), and change consultation (5.30 out of 7).
3.4. Differences between FIFO/DIDO and Non-FIFO/DIDO Employees within the NT
Within the sample, 148 workers indicated that they worked at FIFO/DIDO sites within
the NT. Compared with their non-FIFO/DIDO counterparts (N = 149), these workers
reported significant differences in their job demands and resources; F(11, 264) = 3.33,
p≤0.001,
Wilks’ Lambda = 0.88, partial eta squared = 0.12. When reviewing the results
for job demands separately, FIFO/DIDO workers in the NT reported significantly higher
role overload (17.9%; M
Diff
= 0.43, p= 0.01, CI
95%
= [0.13, 0.73]) and supervisor task conflict
(26.0%; M
Diff
= 0.56, p
≤
0.00, CI
95%
= [0.24, 0.88]). However, responses for role ambiguity,
role conflict, and supervisor relationship conflict were not significantly different between
the two NT samples.
FIFO/DIDO workers also reported significantly lower levels of important job re-
sources, including reduced co-worker support (
−
6.0%; M
Diff
=
−
0.35, p
≤
0.02,
CI95% = [−0.66, −0.05]),
supervisor support (
−
7.1%; M
Diff
=
−
0.42, p
≤
0.01, CI
95%
= [
−
0.73,
−
0.11]), praise and recognition (
−
8.4%; M
Diff
=
−
0.46, p
≤
0.01, CI
95%
= [
−
0.81,
−
0.11]),
procedural justice (
−
8.5%; M
Diff
=
−
0.52, p
≤
0.00, CI
95%
= [
−
0.76,
−
0.27]), and change
consultation (−13.2%; MDiff =−0.74, p≤0.00, CI95% = [−1.06., −0.43]), compared to their
non-FIFO/DIDO counterparts. The reported levels of job control were not significantly
different between the two NT samples. Table 2outlines the results for FIFO/DIDO and
non-FIFO/DIDO employees within the NT.
Table 2. Differences between FIFO/DIDO and non-FIFO/DIDO employees within the NT.
Job Demand/Resource Sample Mean (SD) Mean Difference FValue P[CI95%]
Role Overload FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
2.84 (1.43)
2.41 (1.06) 0.43 8.13 ** 0.00 [0.13, 0.73]
Role Ambiguity FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
1.85 (.83)
1.72 (.75) 0.13 1.83 0.18 [−0.06, 0.32]
Role Conflict FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
2.59 (1.25)
2.47 (1.14) 0.12 0.65 0.42 [−0.17, 0.40]
Job Control FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
4.60 (1.50)
4.67 (1.46) −0.07 0.14 0.71 [−0.42, 0.28]
Co-Worker Support FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
5.51 (1.44)
5.86 (1.09) −0.35 5.27 * 0.02 [−0.66, −0.05]
Supervisor Support FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
5.50 (1.50)
5.92 (1.10) −0.42 7.00 * 0.01 [−0.73, −0.11]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 8 of 15
Table 2. Cont.
Job Demand/Resource Sample Mean (SD) Mean Difference FValue P[CI95%]
Supervisor Task Conflict FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
2.71 (1.45)
2.15 (1.21) 0.56 12.10 ** 0.00 [0.24, 0.88]
Supervisor Relationship Conflict FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
1.75 (1.23)
1.60 (1.12) 0.15 1.12 0.29 [−0.13, 0.43]
Praise and Recognition FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
5.02 (1.58)
5.48 (1.37) −0.46 6.63 * 0.01 [−0.81, −0.11]
Procedural Justice FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
5.58 (1.16)
6.09 (.90) −0.52 16.99 ** 0.00 [−0.76, −0.27]
Change Consultation FIFO/DIDO vs.
Non-FIFO/DIDO
4.91 (1.54)
5.65 (1.08) −0.74 21.54 ** 0.00 [−1.06, −0.43]
Note. N = 139 (FIFO/DIDO); N= 137 (non-FIFO/DIDO); * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01.
3.5. Differences between Subcontractor and Non-Subcontractor Employees within the NT
Within the sample, 97 participants identified that they worked for a subcontractor
within the NT. Parsing their feedback, these workers reported significant differences in their
reported job demands and resources compared to their non-subcontractor peers; (
N = 218
),
F(11, 283) = 1.81, p= 0.05, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.93, partial eta squared = 0.07. Comparing
results for job demands and job resources separately, subcontractors reported significantly
reduced job control (
−
7.8%; M
Diff
=
−
0.37, p= 0.05, CI
95%
= [
−
0.74,
−
0.01]) compared to
their non-subcontractor peers. All other job demands and resources were not significantly
different between the two NT samples. Table 3outlines the results for subcontractor and
non-subcontractor employees within the NT.
Table 3. Differences between subcontractor and non-subcontractor employees within the NT.
Job Demand/Resource Sample Mean (SD) Mean Difference FValue P[CI95%]
Role Overload Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
2.68 (1.23)
2.60 (1.29) 0.08 0.28 0.60 [−0.23, 0.40]
Role Ambiguity Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
1.76 (0.75)
1.83 (0.90) −0.08 0.50 0.48 [−0.28, 0.13]
Role Conflict Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
2.52 (1.26)
2.51 (1.19) 0.02 0.01 0.91 [−0.28, 0.32]
Job Control Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
4.38 (1.54)
4.75 (1.46) −0.37 4.05 * 0.05 [−0.74, −0.01]
Co-Worker Support Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
5.68 (1.37)
5.71 (1.26) −0.02 0.02 0.90 [−0.34, 0.30]
Supervisor Support Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
5.78 (1.39)
5.70 (1.33) 0.08 0.22 0.64 [−0.25, 0.41]
Supervisor Task Conflict Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
2.36 (1.55)
2.43 (1.25) −0.07 0.15 0.70 [−0.40, 0.27]
Supervisor Relationship Conflict Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
1.60 (1.14)
1.70 (1.16) −0.10 0.48 0.49 [−0.38, 0.18]
Praise and Recognition Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
5.38 (1.57)
5.18 (1.51) 0.20 1.11 0.29 [−0.17, 0.58]
Procedural Justice Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
5.86 (1.14)
5.83 (1.05) 0.03 0.05 0.83 [−0.24, 0.29]
Change Consultation Subcontractor vs.
Non-Subcontractor
5.07 (1.39)
5.39 (1.39) −0.32 3.41 0.07 [−0.66, 0.02]
Note. N = 95 (subcontractor); N= 200 (non-subcontractor); * p< 0.05.
3.6. Differences between NT and Non-NT Employees
A comparison between NT employees (N = 330) and employees from the remaining
Australian States and Territories (N = 773) suggests minor differences in reported job
demands and resources; F(11, 1020) = 2.95, p
≤
0.001, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.97, partial
eta squared = 0.03. Comparing their results for job demands and resources separately,

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 9 of 15
NT employees
reported significantly greater perceived supervisor task conflict (11.7%;
M
Diff
= 0.25, p
≤
0.00, CI
95%
= [0.09, 0.41]) compared to their non-NT counterparts. All
other job demands and resources were not significantly different between the two samples.
Table 4outlines the results for NT and non-NT employees.
Table 4. Differences between NT and non-NT employees.
Job Demand/Resource Sample Mean (SD) Mean Difference FValue P[CI95%]
Role Overload NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
2.59 (1.27)
2.71 (1.27) −0.11 1.77 0.18 [−0.28, 0.05]
Role Ambiguity NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
1.80 (0.84)
1.72 (0.82) 0.08 1.94 0.16 [−0.03, 0.19]
Role Conflict NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
2.49 (1.21)
2.52 (1.35) −0.04 0.16 0.69 [−0.21, 0.14]
Job Control NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
4.65 (1.50)
4.56 (1.46) 0.09 0.79 0.37 [−0.11, 0.29]
Co-Worker Support NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
5.72 (1.28)
5.76 (1.25) −0.04 0.24 0.63 [−0.21, 0.13]
Supervisor Support NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
5.74 (1.33)
5.71 (1.42) 0.03 0.10 0.75 [−0.16, 0.22]
Supervisor Task Conflict NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
2.39 (1.34)
2.14 (1.16) 0.25 9.07 ** 0.00 [0.09, 0.41]
Supervisor Relationship Conflict NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
1.64 (1.14)
1.53 (0.91) 0.11 2.74 0.10 [−0.02, 0.24]
Praise and Recognition NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
5.27 (1.51)
5.19 (1.61) 0.08 0.55 0.46 [−0.13, 0.29]
Procedural Justice NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
5.86 (1.07)
5.77 (1.19) 0.08 1.12 0.29 [−0.07, 0.24]
Change Consultation NT vs.
Non-NT Employees
5.31 (1.39)
5.13 (1.40) 0.18 3.63 0.06 [−0.01, 0.37]
Note. N = 307 (NT employees); N= 725 (non-NT employees); ** p< 0.01.
4. Discussion
Overall, our findings provided strong support for our hypothesis that FIFO/DIDO
workers in the NT would report more psychosocial hazards than non-FIFO/DIDO workers.
The results indicate that FIFO/DIDO workers in the NT experienced more role overload
and supervisor task conflict than their non-FIFO/DIDO peers, as well as reduced co-
worker and supervisor support, praise and recognition, procedural justice, and change
consultation. However, there was limited support for our hypotheses that NT workers
and NT subcontractors would report greater job demands and fewer job resources than
non-NT workers and non-NT subcontractors. The results suggest that supervisor task
conflict was higher for NT workers than the broader Australian cohort, and subcontractors
in the NT reported less job control than their non-subcontractor peers. However, all other
job demands and resources remained statistically similar between these groups. Compared
with the broader Australian building and construction industry, the differential impact of
psychosocial hazards on NT workers, particularly FIFO/DIDO workers, has been hitherto
neglected in past research addressing the work environment but is likely to have important
policy and practice implications for regulators, organisations operating in the NT, and
employee representatives.
4.1. The Supervisory Relationship in the Northern Territory Construction Work Environment
The findings of this study on the Northern Territory (NT) building and construction
industry trends in workplace mental health demonstrate a significant improvement from
studies undertaken throughout the duration of COVID-19 [
36
]. The NT sample itself is
small in scale both for the NT and the broader industry, implying that more intimate teams
with established relationships can appear to influence workers’ perceptions of their job
resources, job demands, and mental health stressors [
37
]. The ratio of workers employed

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 10 of 15
by a principal contractor versus subcontractors similarly influences this relationship. Given
the lower percentage of subcontractor employees within the NT sample, the outcome of
subcontractor employees having less job control adds to the complexity of their work
environment and supervisory relationships [36].
Small workgroups with closer relationships, hypothetically, can add to the need for
individual workers to perform multiple job tasks and have their supervisor task expecta-
tions influenced by the scale of the worksite and workgroup [
37
]. Further to the smaller
scale of these workgroups, the industrial dynamics of workgroups are considerably differ-
ent across the NT. Enterprise bargaining agreements in the NT are rare compared to the
broader Australian industry, changing the dynamics and environment for employees and
subcontractors [
38
,
39
]. The NT sample has a lower proportion of subcontractors, and the
identified supervisor of a workgroup was more likely to be a site manager rather than a
leading hand, which is the case in the Australian sample. The managerial role of a site
supervisor compared to a leading hand, who is more likely to have trade-based expertise
and knowledge, has the potential to directly impact supervisor task conflict in the NT
construction work environment [40].
This study demonstrates the need for clear policies and processes for managing psy-
chosocial hazards in the NT building and construction work environment. Supervisor task
conflict refers to conflict over how work is performed onsite. It contrasts with supervisor
relationship conflict, which refers to bad feelings with a personal, rather than a problem,
focus. In high-risk and trades-based roles, control over how work is performed can be
perceived by supervisors as an untenable goal; however, industry representatives need to
think more broadly about what this means at the day-to-day site level [
41
]. Tradespeople
have expertise in their industry and embodying choice by exercising this expertise could
dramatically shift the rates of distress, which is achievable through self-efficacy and sys-
tematic changes to job flow [42]. The existence of smaller, more established teams and the
geographical and social context of the NT construction environment means that workers
are required to do many different jobs that would normally have specific clarity in the
broader Australian context. Industrial instruments that provide specificity to trades-based
roles, conditions and expectations, and minimum standards in relation to workplace health
and safety are more absent in the NT. This argument is hard to quantify with such a small
sample, however, supervisor task conflict is known to have considerable negative impacts
in the construction work environment, including impacts on physical and mental safety.
The NT data that demonstrated this relationship contrasted with results for the broader
Australian sites [
43
]. With supervisor task conflict representing such a variance from the
Australian cohort, and at an even more alarming rate in FIFO/DIDO work environments
in the NT, it is critical that sites, companies, the industry, and government work together to
develop industry-based training for the tradespeople managing diverse teams in diverse
work contexts that incorporate the nuances of subcontracting and the trades-based work
environment of the building and construction industry in the NT.
4.2. Peer Support in the Northern Territory Building and Construction Industry
Peer support has been evidenced to be critical to psychosocial safety in the construc-
tion work environment, and this sample demonstrated minimal concern with this item
compared to previous COVID-19 data [
25
,
36
]. This sample in the NT was garnered from
sites that had a strong peer support network and a training program attached to suicide
prevention and mental health awareness, including accreditation with MATES in Construc-
tion [
25
]. Further exploration of work environments where these factors are not present
could demonstrate how significant peer support is to worker wellbeing and give broader
clarity to peer support in the Northern Territory building and construction industry. The
impact of a strong peer support network in FIFO/DIDO environments also warrants addi-
tional research to determine whether these factors can influence workers’ perceptions of
job control, change consultation, and procedural justice.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 11 of 15
Furthermore, peer support can take many forms in challenging work environments [
44
].
As one example, formal peer support networks have provided paramedics with a great
deal of assistance in mitigating psychosocial hazards [
45
]. This can be achieved through a
range of different mechanisms, for example, informal peer-to-peer support for employees
who are having difficulty coping [
46
]; a slightly more structured system of peer support,
for example, the mates supporting mates system advocated by MATES in Construction;
or formalised systems that provide direct feedback to senior management and human
resource (HR) departments. This formal system, in theory, should provide feedback in a
timely manner about issues that are arising, allowing the HR personnel to intervene and
mitigate the hazards [47].
4.3. Regional and Remote Work Environments in the Northern Territory Building and
Construction Industry
FIFO/DIDO work environments accounted for nearly half of all participants in the
Northern Territory sample. The work environment was of particular concern for this
cohort, with role overload, supervisor task conflict, procedural justice, and change con-
sultation being significantly higher than their non-FIFO/DIDO peers. The challenge of
FIFO/DIDO work environments and their associated psychosocial hazards are not unique
to the NT work environment [
5
,
6
]. Workplace health and safety committees have a clear
responsibility for managing and mitigating these unique factors that can lead to distress,
mental health challenges, and suicide [
48
]. Coupled with broader work factors such as their
isolation from family-based supports and the lack of opportunities to recover from work,
the FIFO/DIDO work environment presents significant hazards for workers that require
additional exploration and an industry-wide investment in mitigation [
15
]. The lower
averages of co-worker support in FIFO/DIDO work environments corroborate previous
studies that found isolation to be a major contributor to distress in FIFO/DIDO work
environments [48].
5. Limitations and Future Research
Our sample was constrained in several ways. The NT cohort, comparatively, was
small in scale both in relation to the local industry and the broader Australian building
and construction industry. Future research would benefit from additional data collection
and a larger sample size; this would allow for a deeper exploration of the variances in
supervisor task conflict represented in the NT data due, for example, to the size and
nature of the construction work, such as civil, commercial, and maintenance work. Future
research focussing on the influence of broader workplaces characteristics on psychosocial
hazards would directly benefit the planning and focus of the NT government and key
stakeholders in the NT’s building and construction industry in terms of hazard mitigation
and suicide prevention.
There is also a need for future research to explore the use of on-site programs that
develop and maintain a formal peer support network [
25
]. Contrasting our results with the
responses of sites that do not have formal peer support networks in place has the potential
to see if peer support is in fact as commonplace and evidenced as reported in the NT sample
and whether it requires particular attention in FIFO/DIDO work environments.
An additional limitation of our sample is the use of survey data only. Although we
can adequately measure many factors that contribute to job demands and job resources
in this context, combining this survey data with qualitative data would provide a greater
understanding of the psychosocial hazards identified in this unique working environ-
ment and expand their meaning. For example, there would be great value in performing
qualitative research to better understand the range of issues that employees and their
supervisors face as time progresses on projects. A qualitative study that draws on the
broader experiences of NT workers could also provide further insight into differences
found for FIFO/DIDO workers, such as how the quality of relationships is influenced by
shifts that require longer periods both at, and away from, the workplace. This is just one

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 12 of 15
of the context-specific research areas that would benefit substantially from a structured
programme of qualitative studies.
Finally, it is also important to acknowledge that the elements of the mental health
framework outlined in Figure 1are interconnected. The underlying purpose of the frame-
work was to work towards a broader systems-based approach to workplace mental health
in the building and construction work environment [
34
]. The focus of this research was the
"Reduce Harmful Impacts of Work” element of the Blueprint framework and, specifically,
to identify the psychosocial hazards for building and construction workers in the NT to
highlight unique factors that may require localised industry responses. Future research is
needed to fully understand how these psychosocial hazards interact with the other four
elements of the framework.
6. Conclusions
Workplace stressors in the NT building and construction industry largely replicate the
trends in the broader Australian building and construction industry, and mainly the impact
of job control on the work environment. Supervisor task conflict in the NT represents a
concerning difference from that of the broader Australian building and construction indus-
try and it is even more problematic in FIFO/DIDO workgroups. Supervisor task conflict
requires localised NT-specific initiatives and responses to mitigate this hazard and sup-
port and enhance individual tradespeople and NT companies in leadership development,
management skills, and systems-based policies.
The literature and the data within this study suggest that FIFO/DIDO work environ-
ments have significant mental health stressors that require broader exploration in future NT
worker samples and in the industry and government responses to FIFO/DIDO projects. The
evidence of improved supervisory relationships with respect to previous studies through-
out COVID-19 requires qualitative data to better understand why this shift has taken place
and what strengths exist in the NT that can be replicated in job sites to improve mental
health and wellbeing, particularly in smaller work environments, such as the residential
construction sector. There is also a need to explore why supervisor relationships have
been enhanced while supervisor task conflict is of concern. Implementing better hazard
controls regarding job control is a clear priority for stakeholders in the NT building and
construction industry to mitigate and prevent distress and self-harm, as evidenced through
these data. Investigation of peer support networks as a protective factor for psychosocial
safety is also critical and requires the inclusion of contrasting sites with no peer support
network present, to confidently determine the impact of these networks on improved
mental health and wellbeing. The NT building and construction work environment has a
unique psychosocial profile of strong peer and supervisor support. However, it also has
problematic supervisor task conflicts and challenging FIFO/DIDO work environments,
with concerning psychosocial outcomes for these workers compared to their peers.
Author Contributions: N.T.: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Project administration, Supervi-
sion, Writing—Original draft, and Review and Editing. A.R.: Investigation, Formal Analysis,
Project Administration, Methodology, Validation, Visualisation, Writing—Original draft, and Review
and Editing. R.L.: Conceptualisation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration,
Writing—Original
Draft, and Review and Editing. A.B.: Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, and
Review and Editing. K.T.: Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, and Review and Editing. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by MATES in Construction (Queensland—Northern Territory)
[Griffith University Project # 03/07/7281, 2023].
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethics approval was provided by the Griffith University
Human Research Ethics Committee (Application reference 2023/388).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the
study in accordance with the ethics approval provided by the Griffith University Human Research
Ethics Committee.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 13 of 15
Data Availability Statement: Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and within constraints of
ethical clearance.
Conflicts of Interest: N.T. is the CEO of MATES in Construction (Queensland—Northern Territory).
Remaining authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.
References
1.
Dickson, R. What’s It Going to Take? Lessons Learned from COVID-19 and Worker Mental Health in the Australian Construction
Industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2023,41, 758–780. [CrossRef]
2.
Oswald, D.; Borg, J.; Sherratt, F. Mental Health in the Construction Industry: A Rapid Review. In Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC), Dublin, Ireland, 1–7 July 2019; pp. 1049–1058. [CrossRef]
3.
Hanson, L.L.M.; Pentti, J.; Nordentoft, M.; Xu, T.; Rugulies, R.; Madsen, I.E.; Conway, P.M.; Westerlund, H.; Vahtera, J.; Ervasti,
J.; et al. Association of Workplace Violence and Bullying with Later Suicide Risk: A Multicohort Study and Meta-Analysis of
Published Data. Lancet Public Health 2023,8, e494–e503. [CrossRef]
4.
Wang, X.; Peng, P.; Liu, Y.; Yang, W.F.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, T. Workplace Violence Inflicted by Patients or their Family
Members/Visitors and its Relationship with Suicidal Ideation among Undergraduate Medical Students During Clinical Training
in China. Ann. Med. 2023,55, 2295027. [CrossRef]
5.
Loudoun, R.; Biggs, A.; Robertson, A.; Townsend, K.; Hon, C. The Australian Building and Construction Industry Blueprint for
Better Mental Health and Suicide Prevention: Audit Tool and People at Work Construction Survey Results Overview. Mates
Constr. 2023. Available online: https://wellsaid.mates.org.au/resources/audit-tool-and-people-at-work-construction-survey-
results-overview/ (accessed on 14 December 2023).
6.
Loudoun, R.; Biggs, A.; Robertson, A.; Townsend, K.; Hon, C. Systematic Review of the Blueprint for Better Mental Health and
Suicide Prevention. 2023. Available online: https://wellsaid.mates.org.au/resources/systematic-review-of-the- blueprint-for-
better-mental-health-and-suicide-prevention/ (accessed on 14 December 2023).
7.
Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001,
86, 499–512. [CrossRef]
8.
Cheung, Y.T.D.; Spittal, M.J.; Pirkis, J.; Yip, P.S.F. Spatial Analysis of Suicide Mortality in Australia: Investigation of Metropolitan-
Rural-Remote Differentials of Suicide Risk Across States/Territories. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012,75, 1460–1468. [CrossRef]
9.
Northern Territory Department of Health. Northern Territory Suicide Prevention Strategic Framework 2018–2023 Implementation
Plan 36 Month Progress Report; Northern Territory Government: Darwin City, NT, Australia, 2022. Available online: https:
//health.nt.gov.au/governance-strategies-committees/nt-health-strategies/suicide-prevention-strategy-review/ (accessed on
13 December 2023).
10.
Lawrance, M.L. Legitimacy, Positioning and Paradigm: Behind the Northern Territory’s Whole of Government Approach to Suicide
Prevention; Charles Darwin University: Casuarina, NT, Australia, 2013. [CrossRef]
11.
Buckby, B.; Stodden, A.; Lutkin, S. Preventing Suicide in the North: Developing Capacity, Local Knowledge and Skills; James Cook
University: Townsville, QLD, Australia, 2016; Available online: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/46190/6/PREVENTING%20
SUICIDE%20TSPN_Buckby_Stodden_Lutkin_UpdatedDec16.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2023).
12.
Ali, T.M. Impacts of Government Funding on the Mental Health Nongovernment Organizations in the Northern Territory,
Australia. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2016,8, 19–30. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/e9a27bcd51ea73683
6d68cce30e69610/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=696409 (accessed on 12 December 2023).
13.
Scanlan, J.N.; Hazelton, T. Relationships Between Job Satisfaction, Burnout, Professional Identity and Meaningfulness of Work
Activities for Occupational Therapists Working in Mental Health. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2019,66, 581–590. [CrossRef]
14.
Moon, S.; Forlani, J.; Wang, X.; Tam, V. Productivity Study of the Scaffolding Operations in Liquefied Natural Gas Plant
Construction: Ichthys Project in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2016,142, 04016008.
[CrossRef]
15.
Martin, J. FIFO Rosters and Workers’ Health and Safety: A Case Study of the Impacts of Extended Shift Rosters on Electrical
Workers in Construction in the Resources Sector. Lab. Ind. J. Soc. Econ. Relat. Work 2020,30, 378–400. [CrossRef]
16.
Doran, C.M.; Ling, R.; Milner, A. The Economic Cost of Suicide and Suicide Behaviour in the Northern Territory Construction Indus-
try; Population Health Strategic Research Centre: Geelong, Australia, 2015; Available online: https://mates.org.au/media/
documents/Cost-of-suicide-in-NT-CI-final-V2.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2023).
17.
Doran, M.C.; Ling, R.; Milner, A.; Kinchin, I. The Economic Cost of Suicide and Non-Fatal Suicidal Behaviour in the Australian
Construction Industry. Int. J. Ment. Health Psychiatry 2016,2, 1–6. [CrossRef]
18.
Maheen, H.; Taouk, Y.; LaMontagne, A.D.; Spittal, M.; King, T. Suicide Trends Among Australian Construction Workers during
Years 2001–2019. Sci. Rep. 2022,12, 20201. [CrossRef]
19.
Lesener, T.; Gusy, B.; Wolter, C. The Job Demands-Resources Model: A Meta-Analytic Review of Longitudinal Studies. Work.
Stress 2019,33, 76–103. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 14 of 15
20.
Dollard, M.F.; Bakker, A.B. Psychosocial Safety Climate as a Precursor to Conducive Work Environments, Psychological Health
Problems, and Employee Engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010,83, 579–599. [CrossRef]
21.
Cheung, C.M.; Zhang, R.P.; Cui, Q.; Hsu, S.C. The Antecedents of Safety Leadership: The Job Demands-Resources Model. Saf. Sci.
2021,133, 104979. [CrossRef]
22.
Lattrich, K.K.; Büttgen, M. Project Leaders’ Control Resources and Role Overload as Predictors of Project Success: Developing the
Job Demands–Resources Model. Bus Res. 2020,13, 767–788. [CrossRef]
23.
Chan, A.P.C.; Nwaogu, J.M.; Naslund, J.A. Mental Ill-Health Risk Factors in the Construction Industry: Systematic Review.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020,146, 04020004. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Tijani, B.; Falana, J.N.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Suicide in the Construction Industry: Literature Review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023,
23, 1684–1693. [CrossRef]
25.
Gullestrup, J.; King, T.; Thomas, S.L.; LaMontagne, A.D. Effectiveness of the Australian MATES in Construction Suicide Prevention
Program: A Systematic Review. Health Promot. Int. 2023,38, daad082. [CrossRef]
26.
Brouwers, E.P.M.; Joosen, M.C.W.; van Zelst, C.; Van Weeghel, J. To Disclose or Not to Disclose: A Multi-stakeholder Focus Group
Study on Mental Health Issues in the Work Environment. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2020,30, 84–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Ennis, G.; Finlayson, M. Alcohol, Violence, and a Fast Growing Male Population: Exploring a Risky-Mix in “Boomtown” Darwin.
Soc. Work. Public Health 2015,30, 51–63. [CrossRef]
28.
Heller, T.S.; Hawgood, J.L.; De Leo, D. Correlates of Suicide in Building Industry Workers. Arch. Suicide Res. 2007,11, 105–117.
[CrossRef]
29.
King, T.; Maheen, H.; LaMontagne, A.D. Suicide in the Construction Industry: 2001–2019; The University of Melbourne: Melbourne,
Australia, 2022; Available online: https://mates.org.au/media/documents/Melb-Uni-Construction-Suicide-2001-2019-Vol- V-
August-2022-40pp-A4-2.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2023).
30.
Parker, S.; Fruhen, L.; Burton, C.; McQuade, S.; Loveny, J.; Griffin, M.; Page, A.; Chikritzhs, T.; Crock, S.; Jorritsma, K.; et al. Impact
of FIFO Work Arrangements on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of FIFO Workers; Centre for Transformative Work Design: Perth,
WA, Australia, 2018. Available online: https://www.mhc.wa.gov.au/media/2547/impact-of-fifo-work-arrangement-on-the-
mental-health-and-wellbeing-of-fifo-workers-full-report.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2023).
31.
Valluru, C.T.; Dekker, S.; Rae, A. How and Why Do Subcontractors Experience Different Safety on High-Risk Work Sites? Cogn.
Technol. Work. 2017,19, 785–794. [CrossRef]
32.
IBISWorld. Industry Report e3021: Commercial and Industrial Building Construction in Australia. 2022. Available online: https:
//www.ibisworld.com/au/market-size/commercial-industrial-building-construction/ (accessed on 14 December 2023).
33.
Loudoun, R.; Biggs, A.; Townsend, K.; Troth, A.; Roberston, A. Measuring Relationships between Workers and Managers
and Stress and Workload in the Building and Construction Industry. Milestone Report 2. 2020. Available online: https:
//wellsaid.mates.org.au/resources/milestone-2-report-mates-final-report-december-2020 (accessed on 13 December 2023).
34.
Thompson, N.; Doran, C.M. Supervisor Relationships, Peer Support and Mental Health Stressors in the Australian Building and
Construction Industry. J. Workplace Behav. Health 2024,in press. [CrossRef]
35.
Way, K. Psychosocial Hazards. In The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals; Australian Institute of Health and
Safety: Tullamarine, VIC, Australia, 2020; pp. 1–50.
36.
Furci, J.; Sunindijo, R.Y. Impacts of the WHS Act 2011 on Safety Management in Small and Medium Construction Companies. Int.
J. Constr. Manag. 2020,20, 196–206. [CrossRef]
37.
Schnabel, C. Union Membership and Collective Bargaining: Trends and Determinants; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–37.
38.
Belman, D.; Druker, J.; White, G. (Eds.) Work and Labor Relations in the Construction Industry: An International Perspective; Routledge:
London, UK, 2021.
39.
Buvik, M.P.; Rolfsen, M. Prior Ties and Trust Development in Project Teams—A Case Study from the Construction Industry. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2015,33, 1484–1494. [CrossRef]
40.
Sommovigo, V.; Setti, I.; Maiolo, M.E.; Argentero, P. Tunnel Construction Workers’ Well-Being: The Role of Job Control and
Supervisor Support. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021,21, 945–957. [CrossRef]
41.
Zheng, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, G.; Yang, Y.; Xia, N.; Liu, B. Daily Self-Efficacy, Work Engagement, and Deviance Behavior Among
Construction Professionals and Workers: Cross-Level Moderating Role of Job Control. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021,147, 04021018.
[CrossRef]
42.
Wu, G.; Hu, Z.; Zheng, J. Role Stress, Job Burnout, and Job Performance in Construction Project Managers: The Moderating Role
of Career Calling. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 2394. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43.
Kellner, A.; Townsend, K.; Loudoun, R.; Wilkinson, A. Barriers to Frontline Manager Support in High Trauma Workplaces. Pers.
Rev. 2019,48, 1394–1409. [CrossRef]
44.
Shakespeare-Finch, J.; Scully, P. Ways in Which Paramedics Cope with, and Respond to, Natural Large-scale Disasters. In The
Phoenix of Natural Disasters: Community Resilience; Gow, K., Paton, D., Eds.; Nova Science: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 89–100.
45.
Loudoun, R.; Townsend, K.; Wilkinson, A.; Mowbray, P.K. The Role of Peer-To-Peer Voice in Severe Work Environments:
Organisational Facilitators and Barriers. Ind. Relat. J. 2020,51, 556–571. [CrossRef]
46.
Kellner, A.; Townsend, K.; Wilkinson, A.; Loudoun, R. High Reliability HRM: A System for High-Risk Workplaces. Hum. Resour.
Manag. J. 2023,33, 170–186. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024,21, 334 15 of 15
47.
Biggs, H.; Wang, X.; Mohamed, S.; Colquhoun, S.; Dovan, N. Challenges for the FIFO/DIDO Workforce in the Australian
Construction Industry: Impacts on Health, Safety and Relationships. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress,
Tampere, Finland, 30 May–3 June 2016; Volume 2.
48.
Bowers, J.; Lo, J.; Miller, P.; Mawren, D.; Jones, B. Psychological Distress in Remote Mining and Construction Workers in Australia.
Med. J. Aust. 2018,208, 391–397. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.