International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Occupational stress, musculoskeletal disorders

and other factors affecting the quality of life in
Indian construction workers

Tania Chakraborty, Sanjib Kumar Das, Vasundhara Pathak & Suman

Mukhopadhyay

To cite this article: Tania Chakraborty, Sanjib Kumar Das, Vasundhara Pathak & Suman
Mukhopadhyay (2017): Occupational stress, musculoskeletal disorders and other factors affecting
the quality of life in Indian construction workers, International Journal of Construction Management,
DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2017.1294281

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1294281

Published online: 17 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20

Download by: [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] Date: 02 July 2017, At: 23:15
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1294281

Occupational stress, musculoskeletal disorders and other factors affecting

the quality of life in Indian construction workers
Tania Chakraborty, Sanjib Kumar Das, Vasundhara Pathak and Suman Mukhopadhyay
Fellow (Doctoral) Programme, Ergonomics and Human Factors Engineering, National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Indian construction industry is enormously growing and continuously needs to recruit workers Construction; occupational
to deliver projects. A majority of these construction workers are semi-skilled or unskilled, which stress; musculoskeletal
puts a great deal of demand on the construction workers and predisposes them to stress at work, disorders; quality of life; OSI;
which in turn leads to ill health. This study was aimed at evaluating the occupational stress and Indian workers
other factors in the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and their impact on the quality of life
of these workers. Standard questionnaires were used for assessment and six occupational groups
were studied. The construction workers worked long hours and were burdened with stress and
most of the workers reported musculoskeletal pain in the body parts that were mostly used during
the tasks performed. These workers scored poor in all the domains of the quality of life. These data
will provide a baseline for risk evaluation and would increase the effectiveness of preventive
measures to be undertaken and a basis for further research in long-term follow-up studies.

Introduction there are well over a thousand workers killed each year
in accidents, there are also many more who suffer ill
The construction industry is the second largest industry
health, which often go unreported in the construction
of the country after agriculture, accounting for 11% of
industry (International Labour Organization 2014).
India’s GDP. Indian construction industry employs
Many studies have reported various health hazard con-
32 million people and its total market size is estimated at
ditions of these construction workers (Vedder & Siemers
Rs. 2,48,000 crores (approximately 35,640 million €)
2003; Haslam et al. 2005). Kaminskas and Antanaitis
(Gandhi et al. 2013). The level of a country’s develop-
(2010) reported that most of the occupational diseases
ment is reflected by its infrastructure, and the desperate
diagnosed in construction workers were multifactorial in
need for infrastructure development has increased the
nature. Stressful conditions at workplace may lead to det-
demand of the construction industry in India.
rimental changes at physical, psychological and social lev-
The construction industry has the dubious distinction
els. These changes may precipitate into health-related
of being the most injury-prone and one of the most haz-
problems like altered body composition (Das & Mukho-
ardous industries in the world. It includes the constant
padhyay 2016), depression, anxiety, sleep disorders and
use of machinery and power tools, working on elevated
stress (D’Souza et al. 2003). Excessive ergonomic stress
scaffoldings, manual handling of heavy construction
can cause a variety of occupational health problems
materials, etc. (Hsiao & Stanevich 1996). Additionally,
including fatigue, discomfort and disability. High expo-
ever-changing work environments, strict time frames
sure to a combination of physical and psychosocial work
and employing unskilled workers on daily wages expose
risk factors has been implicated in the development of
the workers to unforeseen and unfamiliar hazards at
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Pandey et al. 2012,
construction sites. Such workers are exposed to unac-
Das et al. 2015, 2016). Das et al. (2016) noted that psy-
ceptable levels of dust, dirt, noise, toxic chemicals and
chosocial factors based on work style, such as workload,
biological substances. They face various kinds of job-
deadline/pressure and working through pain, might influ-
related safety hazards; ergonomic hazards from lifting
ence risk of incidence of work-related musculoskeletal
heavy loads; and hazards related to poor or insecure
disorders (WMSDs). Association between occupational
employment conditions and job-related stress, placing
stress and MSD has also been studied in India (Nag et al.
health and often lives at risk. It is not just a worker’s
1992, Basu et al. 2008, Das et. al. 2015). Previous studies
safety at risk, but also his health and well-being. While

CONTACT Tania Chakraborty reachtaniya@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 T. CHAKRABORTY ET AL.
have showed an association between stress and quality of
life (QoL) (Valenzuela & Andrades 2007; Cavalheiro et.al.
2008; Babu 2012).
Even though policies are in place to safeguard the
worker in the developed countries, the picture is a grave
one in the developing countries where labour comes
cheap and there is little consideration for well-being and
QoL. These workers are mostly uneducated and unskilled
who come to big cities for a higher income. Some of these
workers are farmers who leave their home in the seasons
when they are not farming. The aim of this study was to
decipher the quantum of occupational stress prevalent in
construction workers involved in manually intensive
work, and its possible relationship with the development
of MSDs and QoL, to ensure worker’s safety.
Methodology
Study design
A cross-sectional study on 268 construction workers
with six occupational groups like masons and concrete
workers (21.64%), carpenters (23.13%), loading-unload-
ing (17.9%), reinforcement (9.7%), labourers (17.9%)
and others (fitters, plumbers, electricians, crane opera-
tors, roofers) (9.7%) was conducted, to assess the occu-
pational stress levels, prevalence of MSDs and QoL.
The tasks performed by the masons were manual
handling of blocks (25–40 Kg), bricks, mortar, block lay-
ing, tile fitting, plastering, concrete work, manual han-
dling of scaffold frames (assemble/dismantle) and tools.
On an average, they laid 100–150 blocks/day or 150–
200 tiles/day. Carpenters carried boards and plywood
forms and braces, performed channels and fittings, posi-
tioning, hammering, sawing, drilling and stripping,
wherein the weight handled varied between 30 and
40 Kg. Loading tasks involved carrying blocks (25–
40 Kg), cement and sand bags (50 Kg). Labourers/help-
ers were involved in excavation work, sieving sand and
gravels, mixing cement, applying ‘plaster of paris’ (on
the walls and ceilings), carrying mortar, slurry, blocks
and tiles to the site, levelling; and handling tools. Rein-
forcement involved the task of manual handling of steel
rods (25–30 Kg), tying beams, positioning and cutting
rods. The number of workers in ‘others group’ for each
type of work was not high enough to be included and
studied as a separate group.
Measures
A self-designed general questionnaire was used to collect
personal information, marital status, the number of fam-
ily members they had to support, years of experience,
the number of breaks or recess, income, work hours per
day and per week and injuries suffered. Other standard
instruments used were the following:
(1) Occupational Stress Index (OSI) (Belkic 2003;
Belkic et al. 1995): This questionnaire was used
with due permission from the author, Dr. Karen
Belkic. OSI is a model with an aim to delineate
work stressors, particularly those relevant to the
cardiovascular system including psychological
demands in terms of how the central nervous sys-
tem receives, processes information and then
directs productive action. The 80 elements are
equally weighted as they are scored using a 0–2
scale, where 0 means absent and 2 means strongly
present. Higher scores thus indicate a higher level
of burden. The aspect scores are then summed to
generate the total OSI score, which reflects the
overall burden from work stressors. OSI score
considered as low as
65, moderate as >66 and

75 and high as >75. The Cronbach’s alpha for
this scale was found to be 0.734. The scale was
found to have good validity which has been deter-
mined on the Indian population.
(2) Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ)
(Kuorinka et al. 1987): NMQ was used to assess
the nature and severity of self-rated musculoskele-
tal symptoms. The questionnaire included items
seeking information about the experience of MSDs
in nine parts of the body (neck, shoulders, elbows,
wrists/hands, upper back, lower back, hips/thighs,
knees and ankles/feet). The Cronbach’s alpha for
this scale was found to be 0.905.
(3) WHOQoL-BREF Questionnaire (Nelson &
Lofty, 1999): QoL of the respondents were deter-
mined using the validated version of the World
Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief Version
(WHOQoL-BREF). It contains the 26-item
version where only 24 items are necessary for the
QoL assessment. It is a self-reported questionnaire
containing four domains namely physical health
(7 items), psychological status (6 items), social
relationships (3 items) and environmental condi-
tions (8 items), and the results were obtained by
applying equations that determined the raw scores
(RS). The minimum and maximum values of the
RS for domain I – ‘physical’, varied between 7 and
35; domain II – ‘psychological’, between 6 and 30;
domain III – ‘social’, between 5 and 15; and
finally, domain IV – ‘environment’, varied
between 8 and 40. All items were scored on a Lik-
ert scale of 1–5. Domain scores were scaled in the
positive direction, i.e. a higher score denotes a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3

higher QoL. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale Table 3. Linear regression between OSI, Age and Work hours.
was found to be 0.811. Variables Coefficient t p
Age 0.058 1.209 0.228
Work hour/day 1.622 4.240 0.001
R2 = 0.073, Adjusted R2 = 0.062. Dependent variable: Total OSI.
Results
Six occupational groups were examined in this study.
The mean age of the construction workers was (p < 0.05) between all the occupational groups for the
28.17 years. The mean work hours per day and per week total OSI score and individual work stressor aspects,
for the construction workers were 10.43 hours and except total strictness.
68.14 hours, respectively. A total of 107 (39.92%) work-
ers worked for more than 12 hours per day. Almost all Impact of age and work hour on OSI
the construction workers worked overtime every week In Table 3, it is observed that work hour/day has positive
for which they were paid extra. relationship with OSI and it is highly significant (coeffi-
cient = 1.622, p < 0.001, t = 4.240). This suggested that
Occupational stress an increase in the work hour/day would lead to
increased occupational stress and vice versa. Age of the
The results showed that the construction workers were a workers did not seem to affect their level of occupational
heavily burdened occupational group. The total OSI stress.
score for construction workers was 76.76, which indi-
cated a high level of stress (shown in Table 1). Stressors
from the high demand group scored maximum (shown Musculoskeletal disorders
in Table 2). The categorization of low level of stress was
The overall MSD symptoms were widely reported by the
still higher than the high level measured for the IT work-
ers in India (Babu 2012). respondents. Eighty (80%) percentage of respondents
experienced some form of MSDs in the past 12 months.
Table 4 showed the absolute number and percentages of
Comparison of OSI among construction workers
the respondents experiencing MSDs. A majority of the
Table 2 showed the individual stressor aspects and the
respondents reported low back pain in the past 12
total OSI score by occupational groups of construction
months (n = 126, 40.64%) and past 7 days (n = 105,
workers. The highest mean OSI score was observed in
33.87%) followed by shoulder pain (n = 93, 30.00%), and
masons, which was followed by scores of the labourers.
wrist and hand pain (n = 75, 24.19%). Highest number
The minimum OSI score was observed in the carpenter
of days (1447 days/year) of absenteeism were observed
group. The results of the one-way ANOVA followed
in respondents reporting low back pain, followed by
by post hoc comparison revealed significant differences
absenteeism in respondents with wrist and hand pain
(479 days/year) and shoulder pain (301 days/year),
Table 1. Workplace stressor aspects and the Total Occupational shown in Table 4.
Stress Index. The incidence of MSDs experienced by the different
Aspect of the OSI Mean (SD) Range groups of the construction workers was studied sepa-
Underload 13.90 (2.96) 6.00–18.50 rately. Majority of the masons reported pain in the lower
High Demand 17.03 (3.25) 10.50–28.50
Strictness 15.62 (1.90) 7.00–19.00 back (48.27%) in the past 12 months, followed by pain
Extrinsic Time Pressure 4.34 (1.10) 2.00–7.50 in the wrist and hand (32.75%), shoulder (27.58%) and
Noxious Physical Exposure 7.99 (1.03) 4.00–11.00
Threat Avoidance 7.91 (1.78) 1.50–12.00
upper back (27.58%). The problem in lower back was so
Confllict/Uncertainty 9.98 (1.87) 5.50–17.00 pronounced that the masons had a total absenteeism of
Total OSI 76.76 (6.47) 56.50–92.00 392 days/year. The carpenters reported pain in the lower

Table 2. Workplace stressor aspects and the Total OSI for the Occupational Groups.
Aspect of the OSI Masons Carpenters Loading Labour Reinforcement Others
Underload 12.86 (2.30) 13.42 (3.13) 14.69 (1.75) 17.03 (1.43) 11.46 (1.93) 12.58 (3.65)
High Demand 20.79 (2.42) 15.87 (2.92) 16.92 (2.30) 15.50 (1.99) 16.42 (2.60) 15.00 (2.97)
Strictness 15.83 (2.77) 15.53 (2.04) 15.04 (1.41) 15.85 (1.45) 15.42 (0.74) 16.15 (1.27)
Extrinsic Time Pressure 5.03 (1.12) 3.76 (0.83) 4.35 (0.59) 4.60 (1.32) 3.88 (0.75) 4.12 (1.24)
Noxious Physical Exposure 7.66 (1.13) 7.90 (0.83) 8.23 (0.64) 7.90 (0.52) 8.58 (0.59) 8.08 (2.08)
Threat Avoidance 8.52 (2.55) 7.52 (1.39) 7.96 (1.00) 7.60 (1.55) 7.96 (1.26) 7.92 (2.21)
Conflict/Uncertainty 9.78 (1.66) 9.48 (1.91) 10.32 (1.62) 6.77 (1.63) 9.81 (1.12) 10.65 (1.74)
Total OSI 80.47 (7.43) 73.48 (5.05) 77.51 (4.35) 78.72 (4.81) 73.54 (4.19) 74.50 (8.90)
4 T. CHAKRABORTY ET AL.

Table 4. Self-reported outcomes with NMQ of respondents.

Pain in the last 12 months Pain in the last 7 days Prevented from carrying out activities Because of activity at work Absenteeism
Days/year
Neck 32 (10.32%) 24 (7.74%) 17 (5.48%) 26 (8.38%) 17
Shoulder 93 (30.00%) 82 (26.45) 47 (15.16%) 89 (28.7%) 301
Elbow 43 (13.87%) 42 (13.54%) 20 (6.45%) 43 (13.87%) 171
Wrist/hand 75 (24.19%) 64 (20.64%) 46 (14.83%) 67 (21.61%) 479
Upper back 55 (17.74%) 44 (14.19%) 19 (6.12%) 53 (17.09%) 167
Lower back 126 (40.64%) 105 (33.87%) 89 (28.70%) 114 (36.77%) 1447
Thigh 14 (4.51%) 12 (3.87%) 8 (2.58%) 12 (3.87%) 0
Knee 68 (21.93%) 52 (16.77%) 40 (12.90%) 59 (19.03%) 271
Ankle 30 (9.67%) 28 (9.03%) 18 (5.80%) 24 (7.74%) 14

back (24.19%), followed by wrist and hand (22.58%), MSD scores amongst the groups (F (5,262) = 7.21;
shoulder (19.35%) and knee (16.12%). The maximum p < 0.05).
days off from work by the carpenters were reported due
to knee pain (165 days/year). The majority of loaders Impact of age, work hours and total OSI on prevalence
reported pain in the lower back (45.83%), followed by of MSDs
shoulder (41.67%) and upper back (31.25%). The maxi- In Table 6, it was observed that OSI (coefficient = 0.357,
mum days off from work by the loaders were reported p = 0.001, t = 6.100) and age (coefficient = 0.195, p =
due to knee pain (275 days/year). The labourers reported 0.001, t = 3.332) have positive relationship with MSDs,
pain in the lower back (50.00%), followed by the shoul- which is highly significant. This suggested that an
der (37.50%) and knee (29.57%). The maximum days off increase in the OSI score would lead to increased MSDs
from work by the loaders were reported due to lower and vice versa. Age of the workers did affect their chance
back pain (538 days/year). The reinforcement workers of developing MSDs. However, work hour/day was not
reported pain in the lower back (30.77%) in the past found to affect MSDs.
12 months, followed by pain in the wrist and hand
(26.92%), knee (15.38%), neck (15.38%) and shoulder
(15.38%). The maximum days off from work by the Quality of life
reinforcement workers were reported due to wrist As to QoL, the ‘social relationship’ domain obtained the
and hand pain (34 days/year). Majority of the ‘other highest score, while the ‘environmental’ domain had the
workers group’ reported pain in the lower back (46.15%) lowest score (Table 7). One-way ANOVA was conducted
in the past 12 months, followed by the wrist and followed by post hoc comparison to compare the QoL
hand (42.31%) and elbow (38.46%); pain in the amongst the construction workers which revealed signif-
shoulder, knee and ankle all had similar incidences of icant difference (p < 0.05) in the mean scores for ‘envi-
30.77%. The maximum days off from work by the ronmental domain’ only.
other workers were reported due to shoulder pain
(81 days/year). Comparison of QoL among construction workers
Scores of four items of the NMQ scale (pain in the last All the four domains and the total QoL scores for the
12 months, pain in the last 7 days, prevented from carry- occupational groups under the study are shown in
ing out activities, pain due to activity at work) pertaining
to each body part were added to get the grand total
score. The NMQ grand total scores of the six occupa- Table 6. Linear regression between MSD and Age, work hour/
tional groups are presented in Table 5. Grand total score day and OSI.
was compared amongst the occupational groups by one- Variables Coefficient t p
Age 0.195 3.332 0.001
way ANOVA, which revealed significant difference in Work hour/day ¡0.085 ¡1.463 0.144
OSI 0.357 6.100 0.001
R2 = 0.117, Adjusted R2 = 0.111, dependent variable: NMQ.
Table 5. NMQ Grand Total Score of Construction Workers.
Total NMQ score Mean (SD)
Table 7. QoL scores for the respondents.
Masons 7.15 (4.51)
Carpenters 3.68 (3.48) Domains Mean § SD
Loaders 7.33 (4.90) Physical health domain 47.25 § 11.79
Labourers 6.29 (5.09) Psychological domain 52.88 § 12.68
Reinforcement 3.08 (3.39) Social relationship domain 59.72 § 16.88
Others 10.03 (12.34) Environmental domain 44.22 § 15.24
Total 6.11 (5.94) Total QoL 204.07 § 38.81
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

Table 8. QoL for the occupational groups among construction workers.

Domains of QoL Masons Carpenters Loading Labour Reinforcement Others
Physical health domain 48.24 (11.80) 47.94 (8.92) 47.31 (14.26) 42.67 (6.67) 46.15 (10.35) 47.46 (11.75)
Psychological domain 49.84 (12.76) 49.87 (8.97) 50.79 (12.77) 51.33 (10.54) 53.65 (14.65) 52.98 (12.78)
Social relationship domain 54.03 (13.38) 58.74 (15.56) 56.00 (13.76) 54.38 (15.38) 62.92 (18.58) 54.88 (12.04)
Environmental domain 38.40 (17.81) 44.65 (12.96) 44.54 (11.16) 38.92 (14.18) 49.31 (12.70) 38.27 (12.00)
Total QoL 190.52 (32.33) 201.19 (35.22) 198.65 (26.88) 187.29 (27.69) 212.04 (43.34) 193.54 (27.61)

Table 9. Linear regression between total QoL and age, work
hours and total OSI.
Variables Coefficient t p
Age 0.035 0.149
Work hours/day 0.764 0.403
Total OSI ¡2.126 ¡7.201
MSD ¡11.039 ¡2.517
Dependent variable: Total QoL.
Table 8. The lowest score (187.29) for QoL was observed
for the labour group and the highest score (212.04) was
observed for workers involved in reinforcement work.
Impact of age, work hour, total OSI and MSD on QoL
It was observed that total OSI has a negative relationship
with total QoL and it was highly significant (coefficient =
¡2.12, p = 0.001, t = ¡7.20) shown in Table 9. This
suggested that a decrease in the total OSI would lead
to increased total QoL and vice versa. Age and work
hour/day of the workers did not seem to affect their total
QoL, as shown in Table 9. The impact of age, work hours
and total OSI had the same relationship with each of the
individual domains of QoL. It was also observed that
MSD had a negative relationship with total QoL and
it was highly significant (coefficient = ¡11.03, p = 0.002,
t = ¡2.51). This suggested that a decrease in the MSD
would lead to increased total QoL and vice versa.
Discussions
The total OSI score for construction worker was 76.76
(Table 1) which fell under the ‘high’ tertile category.
Djindjic et al. (2012), in their study, also found that the
construction workers experienced high levels of stress
with their OSI score as high as 80.6. A possible reason
for this could be the highly physically demanding tasks
carried out by the construction workers under stringent
timelines and their poor pay and work environment.
Among the occupational groups, masons were
reported to have the highest mean OSI score (80.47), fol-
lowed by labourers (78.72), and workers involved in
loading (77.51), shown in Table 2. Even though all of
these workers were associated with the same construc-
tion industry, the nature of their work was diverse. The
masons were required to perform extensive physical
work (handle the blocks, slurry, mortar and the tools)
with accuracy and precision, continuously creating a
consistent demand on their mental faculty as well as
physical. On the other hand, the labourers and the work-
ers involved in loading activities perform very heavy
0.882
0.687 physical task in bouts and not continuously for longer
0.001 period of time, the nature of their task being more physi-
0.002
cal and less cerebral.
The work stressor aspect ‘underload’ covers input sig-
nals which were homogenous, low frequency of signals,
working alone where need for communication was less,
decision was automatic, fixed and inadequate pay, no
chance of upgrade and lack of recognition of good work.
The labourer scored the highest in this work stressor
aspect, followed by the workers involved in loading,
shown in Table 2. Both these tasks were monotonous
and repetitive in nature and there was hardly any scope
for decision-making. The pay was poor and did not
cover their needs at times. Among the construction
workers, masons scored the highest in the work stressor
aspect, ‘high demand’, followed by loading and rein-
forcement workers, shown in Table 2. Masons were
required to finish a given task in a constrained time
frame for which they often worked beyond the normal
work hours. There was burden on their visual system
and they communicated with the labourers for the mor-
tar/slurry and blocks and with the managers to negotiate
time. On the other hand, the workers involved in loading
and the labourers had to work as per the requirement of
the masons and the manager’s instruction. The mason
was dependent on the labourers for their work which in
turn put pressure on the labourers to finish a task in a
particular time frame. The loading workers had to carry
heavy blocks, sacks of cement and sand through uneven
surfaces, keeping always alert for falling objects, taking
the makeshift bamboo ladder and avoid nails, shards,
etc., on the floor.
‘Strictness’ measured input for which strict signal
detection was required, strict problem-solving strategy,
strictly defined correct decision, fixed body position,
confined workplace, lack of autonomous workspace, lim-
ited time off from work, schedule, task, policy, with
whom one works. No significant difference was found
between the occupational groups for the ‘strictness’
work stressor aspect. There was lack of opportunity for
decision-making as these workers followed what was
being asked of them. They adapted odd work postures,
and there was lack of safety at workplace, poor pay, no
6 T. CHAKRABORTY ET AL.
pensions or health benefits for self and family, and
extended work hours.
Work hour/day had positive relationship with OSI,
shown in Table 3, which suggested that an increase in
the work hour/day would lead to increased occupational
stress and vice versa. Work overloads, working long
hours and role ambiguity are known to be leading causes
of stress amongst professionals in construction projects
(Pandey et. al. 2012). Twelve-hour work days are ‘long’
and studies have found adverse health and well-being
effects associated with these (Iskra-Golec et. al. 1996).
A high proportion (80%) of construction workers
reported MSDs at least in one body part due to their
work. The most commonly reported MSDs in this study
were low back pain, followed by shoulder pain, wrist and
hand pain, shown in Table 4. The workers mentioned
pain in the lower back, wrist/hand, shoulders and elbow
as the reason for being absent from work. In this study,
the construction workers lost 1447 days in the last 12
months due to low back pain, the highest due to pain in
the body parts. According to the study of Bindra et al.
2015, the prevalence of low back pain in Indian popula-
tion has been found to vary between 6.2% (in general
population) and 92% (in construction workers). This
study also found an association of occupational stress
with MSDs as shown in Table 6. Literature has shown a
positive association between stress and work-related
MSDs (Bongers et al. 2002; Das et. al. 2015).
As for ‘QoL’, the ‘social relationship’ domain, which
evaluates personal relationships, social support and sex-
ual activity facets, scored the highest, shown in Table 7.
The lowest score was found in the ‘environmental’
domain. The environment in which the construction
workers were exposed to during work was hot, humid
and full of dust and grime due to excavation work,
cement, sand and gravels, which may be the reason for
the environmental domain score to lag behind all other
domains. The highest total QoL was observed in the
reinforcement workers as shown in Table 8, possibly
because they were the ones who were the highest paid
amongst the construction workers. The lowest score was
found in the labourers. Even though all the occupational
groups worked in the same site, some groups were more
exposed to dust, grime, hot and humid environment like
labourers and loading, than others. These findings could
not be compared with other studies due to the absence
of literature pertaining to construction workers.
Conclusions
The study brought out an association between occupa-
tional stress, MSDs and quality of life in construction
workers. This study concluded that construction workers
were a group who experienced high levels of stress at the
workplace. MSDs were reported by a very high propor-
tion of workers. These construction workers scored low
in all the domains of the quality of life. Based on the
findings of the present study, the following recommen-
dations can be addressed at the level of worker: (i) The
workers need to be regularly apprised about health and
safety issues pertaining to their work. (ii) Use of personal
protective equipment, particularly in high risk jobs like
use of harness while working on scaffoldings (the pres-
ent study revealed 48 falls from height). Additionally,
use of gloves, helmets, goggles, etc., during particular
activities need to be made mandatory to reduce the
number of injuries. (iii) The study does not rule out the
possibility of a certain portion of the injuries occurring
because of overwork (107 workers were found to work
more than 12 hours a day). The lure of overtime needs
to be dispensed with. This risk evaluation would increase
the effectiveness of preventive measures to be under-
taken and a basis for further research in long-term fol-
low-up studies.
Limitations and future research scope
This study was conducted in two sites in Mumbai with
only construction workers involved in the erection of
buildings, so the results may not be generalized for civil/
infrastructure and industrial constructions. Since MSDs
and excessive occupational stress have been found to be
the major reasons for the loss of work efficiency (Das &
Mukhopadhyay 2014, Mukhopadhyay et.al. 2015, Das
et.al. 2016), future emphasis needs to be given on recom-
mending suitable remedial solutions for attenuation of
the MSDs, reducing high levels of stress and a substantial
increase in the quality of life. The study can also be
repeated to quantify the risk factors in construction
managers and a comparative assessment with the con-
struction workers, to get a bigger and better picture of
the industry.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the National Institute of Industrial Engi-
neering for supporting us and to the construction workers and
site managers without whom the data collection would not
have been possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Babu G. 2012. Prevalence of job stress, general health profile
and hypertension among professionals in the information
technology sector in Bengaluru, India [electronic thesis and
dissertation]. UCLA. Available from: https://escholarship.
org/uc/item/3137m5hh.
Basu K, Sahu S, Pau G. 2008. Ergonomic evaluation of work
stress among female labourers. Asian-Pacific Newslett
Occup Health Safety. 15:57–58.
Belkic, K. 2003. The occupational stress index: an approach
derived from cognitive ergonomics and brain research for
clinical practice. Cambridge: Cambridge International Sci-
ence Publishing.
Belkic K, Savic C, Theorell T, Cizinsky S. 1995. Work stressors
and cardiovascular risk: assessment for clinical practice.
Part I (Report No. 256). Stockholm (Sweden): Stress
Research Reports National Institute for Psychosocial Fac-
tors and Health. Section for Stress Research, Karolinska
Institute, WHO Psychosocial Centre.
Bindra S, Sinha AGK, Benjamin AI. 2015. Epidemiology of low
back pain in Indian population: a review. Intl J Bas Appl
Med Sci. [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jun 10]. Available from:
http://www.cibtech.org/J-MEDICAL-SCIENCES/PUBLI
CATIONS/2015/Vol_5_No_1/29-JMS-029-BINDRA-EPI
DEMIOLOGY-REVIEW.pdf.
Bongers PM, Kremer AM, terLaak J. 2002. Are psychosocial
factors risk factors for symptoms and signs of the shoulder,
elbow or hand/wrist: a review of the epidemiological litera-
ture. Am J Ind Med. 41:315–342.
Cavalheiro AM, Moura JDF, Lopes AC. 2008. Stress in nurses
working in intensive care units. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem.
16:29–35.
Das SK, Mukhopadhyay S. 2016. Effect of altered body compo-
sition on musculoskeletal disorders in medical practi-
tioners. Int J Res Eng Tech. 5:ICRAES-2016.
Das SK, Mukhopadhyay S, Patyal VS. 2016. Development and
validation of a Re-Modified Work-Style Short Form Ques-
tionnaire for assessment of stress in medical practitioners
working in Indian hospitals. Theo Issues Ergon Sci. 18:95–
109. DOI:10.1080/1463922X.2016.1154228.
Das SK, Mukhopadhyay S, Koilakuntla M. 2015. Analytic hier-
archy process to rate risk factors associated with WMSDs in
general physicians. J Health Manag. 17:241–247.
Das SK, Mukhopadhyay S. 2014. Integrating ergonomics tools
in physical therapy for musculoskeletal risk assessment and
rehabilitation – a review. Int J Eng Sci Res. 2:136–155.
Djindjic N, Jovanovic J, Djindjic B, et al. 2012. Associations
between the occupational stress index and hypertension,
type 2 diabetes mellitus, and lipid disorders in middle-aged
men and women. Ann Occup Hyg. 56:1051–1062.
D’Souza RM, Strazdins L, Lim LL, Broom DH, Rodgers B.
2003. Work and health in a contemporary society:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7
demands, control, and insecurity. J Epidemiol Community
Health. 57:849–854.
Gandhi S, Gupta A, Sethi S. 2013. Extreme weather events and
climate change impact on construction small medium
enterprises (SME’s): imbibing indigenous responses for
sustainability of SME’s.J Earth Sci Clim Change. 4:173.
doi:10.4172/2157-7617.1000173.
Haslam RA, Hide SA, Gibb AGF, Gyi DE, Pavitt T, Atkinson
S, Duff AR. 2005. Contributing factors in construction acci-
dents. Appl Ergon. 36 :401–415.
Hsiao H, Stanevich RL. 1996. Biomechanical evaluation of
scaffolding tasks. Int J Ind Ergon. 18:407–415.
International Labour Organization. 2014. Safety and health at
work: a vision for sustainable prevention. XX World Con-
gress on Safety and Health at Work 2014: Global Forum
for Prevention; 2014 Aug 24–27; ILO, Geneva. Frankfurt
(Germany): International Labour Office.
Iskra-Golec I, Folkard S, Marek T, Noworol C. 1996. Health,
well-being and burnout of ICU nurses on 12 and 8h shifts.
Work Stress. 10:251–256.
Kaminskas KA, Antanaitis J. 2010. A cross-sectional survey of
construction workers: an ergonomic approach. In: Vain-
i€
unas P, Zavadskas EK, editors. The 10th International
Conference “Modern Building Materials, Structures and
Techniques”: Selected papers, Vol. 1; 2010 May 19–21;
Lithuania. Vilnius: Technika; p. 1246–1252.
Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sor-
ensen F, Andersson G, Jorgensen K. 1987. Standardized
nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal
symptoms. Appl Ergon. 18:233–237.
Mukhopadhyay S, Das SK, Jathan M. 2015. Incidences of
work-related musculoskeletal disorders among house-
maids: the urban poor dwelling in slums of Mumbai. In:
Dhara PC, editor. Ergonomics for rural development. Mid-
napore (India): Department of Human Physiology with
Community Health, Vidyasagar University; p. 413–420.
Nag A, Desai H, Nag PK. 1992. Work stress of women in sew-
ing machine operation. J Hum Ergol. 21:47–55.
Nelson CB, Lotfy M. 1999. The World Health Organization’s
WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric
properties and results of the international field trial. WHO
(MNH/MHP/99.7).
Pandey V, Chakraborty T, Mukhopadhyay S. 2012. Prevalence
of musculoskeletal disorders, levels of physical activity and
perceived quality of life amongst construction site manag-
ers in Mumbai: a case study. Work. 43:447–451.
Valenzuela SS, Andrades BL. 2007. Quality of life associated
factors in Chileans hospitals nurses. Rev Lat Am Enferma-
gem. 15:480–486.
Vedder J, Siemers M. 2003. Accidents and safety in the con-
struction industry. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Con-
gress of the International Ergonomics Association; Seoul
(Korea); vol. 6, pp. 19–22.