Ergonomic and Psychosocial Risk Factors and Their Relationship with Productivity: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

This study analyzes the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and labor productivity using a bibliometric approach through a general analysis and one that includes inclusion criteria such as English language, open access, and primary research publications to identify only those articles that explicitly address the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and labor productivity. It is recognized that both physical and psychosocial conditions of the work environment directly influence workers’ health and organizational performance. For this purpose, a bibliometric review was conducted in academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis, resulting in the selection of 4794 relevant articles for general analysis. Additionally, 116 relevant articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Tools and methodologies, such as Rayyan, Excel, VOSviewer 1.6.20, and PRISMA, were used to classify the studies and identify trends, collaboration networks, and geographical distribution. The results reveal a sustained growth in scientific production, with clusters on occupational safety and health, work environment factors, and the characteristics of the population, approach, and methodologies used in the studies. Likewise, Procedia Manufacturing, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, and Ergonomics stand out as the main sources of publication, while countries such as Sweden, Poland, and the United States lead the scientific production in this field. In addition, the network of co-occurrence of keywords evidences a comprehensive approach that articulates physical or ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors with organizational performance, while the network of authors shows consolidated collaborations and studies focused on analyzing the relationship between physical demands and musculoskeletal disorders from advanced ergonomic approaches.

1. Introduction

The relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity in work environments is an emerging area due to its direct impact on workers’ health and organizational performance; however, there are studies in which they are addressed from an independent perspective other than factors and productivity, so the absence of bibliometric studies that allow us to have empirical evidence on an integrated approach that articulates both types of risks in the context of productivity is a knowledge gap that this study addresses.

In the field of ergonomics, the research focuses on identifying and reducing physical risk factors present in the work environment, such as awkward postures, repetitive movements, and load handling, to adapt working conditions to the physical and mental capabilities of employees, reduce fatigue, and prevent musculoskeletal disorders [1].

The analysis of psychosocial factors considers the interaction between psychological aspects (such as emotions and thoughts) and social aspects (such as interpersonal relationships, work environment, and culture, among others). In work contexts, they focus on elements such as mental workload, control over work, and social support, which are known as psychosocial risk factors that influence emotional well-being, motivation, and job satisfaction [2].

Productivity is measured both quantitatively and qualitatively from two perspectives: the objective and the destination. In the first case, the effectiveness of actions in achieving the objective is evaluated; in the second, the result is analyzed as the efficiency of the activity [3]. In addition, productivity is evaluated using various indicators such as performance, efficiency, absenteeism, and presenteeism, all of which are considered an integral part of the concept of productivity.

Recent studies show that poorly designed work environments, whether physical or social, cause health problems and lower productivity [4]. Globally, the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization estimate that two million people die each year due to work-related accidents, illnesses, or injuries. In addition, it is important to take into account the numerous non-fatal occupational accidents [5]. On the other hand, they mention that 12 billion workdays are lost each year due to depression and anxiety, representing a cost of USD 1 trillion in lost productivity [6].

For example, in the manufacturing sector, ergonomic risk factors, such as high physical exertion and exposure to static postures, increase the risk of musculoskeletal disorders, while psychosocial risk factors, such as lack of organizational support, contribute to high levels of stress and emotional exhaustion [4,7]. In offices, elements such as air quality and noise have also been linked to impaired mental health and reduced work performance [8].

A particular case is represented by occupations with high levels of mental and emotional workload, such as customer service. These workers, in addition to facing physical demands, must manage intense social interactions, which increases the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders in regions such as the neck, back, and shoulders [9]. On the other hand, the implementation of systems such as task rotation in manufacturing lines is an effective solution to reduce monotony, improve motivation, and reduce musculoskeletal injuries [1].

Despite advances, challenges persist in integrating ergonomic and psychosocial strategies [10]. The literature highlights the importance of interventions that combine improvements in the physical design of the work environment with programs that promote psychosocial well-being [11]. Therefore, it is important to have a safe, ergonomic, and healthy working environment for the worker, as it is a fundamental human right [12].

In addition to its impact on the physical and mental health of workers, the proper management of a safe working environment in turn promotes a culture of safe behavior and has important economic implications for organizations [13]. Reduced occupational illnesses and absenteeism, together with increased efficiency and job satisfaction, represent a positive return on investment in ergonomics and organizational wellness strategies [14].

In this context, the following article aims to perform a bibliometric analysis of the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity, using quantitative tools to evaluate scientific production in this area. This study is relevant due to the growing interest in understanding how these factors impact labor productivity from a global scientific perspective, i.e., the study of these three elements in an articulated manner. Analyzing evolution, thematic trends, and main contributions allows us to identify research gaps, guide future studies, and strengthen intervention strategies in work environments.

2. Materials and Methods

This bibliometric review was developed from a systematic search in four high-impact academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis. The search strategy used the keywords Ergonomics, Psychosocial, and (Productivity OR Performance), combined with Boolean operators. Although we initially considered integrating the term risk factors to limit the search to specific risk factors, its inclusion considerably reduced the number of results and excluded potentially relevant studies. Therefore, we opted for a broader formulation, focusing on key concepts, to obtain a more complete view of the field.

To provide a more comprehensive overview of the scientific landscape and a more complete understanding of the state of the art, a general bibliometric analysis of the articles retrieved during the systematic search was also performed before applying the stricter inclusion criteria. The purpose of this analysis was to map the general behavior of the scientific literature, identify publication patterns, and complement the detailed analysis with a global perspective of the field.

To this end, Microsoft Excel version 2504 and VOSviewer 1.6.20 tools were used to classify the records by title, year, journal, and keywords. This analysis made it possible to identify the annual evolution of publications, the most productive journals, and the frequency of appearance of key concepts.

Subsequently, the following inclusion criteria were determined to delimit the selection of studies relevant to the topic of interest:

• Articles in English;
• Primary research publications;
• Open access.

The retrieved documents were downloaded in .RIS format and subsequently managed using the Rayyan platform [15], a tool that allows articles to be efficiently organized and refined. The selection process was structured following the PRISMA methodology, which provides a rigorous and transparent framework for bibliometric and systematic reviews [16].

The stages included the following:

• Duplicate elimination: Identification and exclusion of duplicate articles from the different databases;
• Keyword screening: Review of key terms to determine thematic relevance;
• Article retrieval: Downloading full papers for detailed analysis;
• Eligibility assessment: Application of inclusion criteria, considering only those studies that addressed the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and labor productivity.

In addition, a database was constructed in Microsoft Excel to record the relevant information of the selected articles, including title, authors, year of publication, journal, country, and database of origin. This organization made it possible to structure the information systematically and to perform the analysis globally through graphic representations of the annual evolution of publications, the most recurrent journals, and the countries with the greatest scientific production on the subject. The articles were also characterized into three thematic categories according to their focus: (1) ergonomic risk factors and productivity, (2) psychosocial risk factors and productivity, and (3) ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity. Based on this classification, an evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies was first carried out using two validated checklists: CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) [17] and NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) [18]. The choice between one or the other tool depended on the methodological design of each study. The CASP was mainly used for qualitative studies, case studies, and reviews, whereas the NHLBI was applied to quantitative research, especially cross-sectional observational studies and intervention trials. Both lists allowed the quality of the studies to be categorized as “Good”, “Fair”, or “Poor”, depending on the degree of compliance with the criteria assessed in each list. This strategy guaranteed a rigorous evaluation adapted to the methodological nature of each article. Subsequently, a specific bibliometric characterization and review were carried out for each thematic category to substantiate scientific production.

Finally, the VOSviewer 1.6.20 tool [19] was used to perform a bibliometric analysis focused on the co-occurrence of keywords and collaboration networks between authors. This methodological orientation responded to the characteristics of the database files used, which limited the availability of certain fields of information. Even so, analysis made it possible to identify the main thematic areas addressed in the literature, as well as the dynamics of collaboration between researchers in this field of study.

3. Results

Derived from the methodological approach adopted, the combined use of tools such as Excel and VOSviewer 1.6.20 not only facilitated the organization and systematization of the information but also enriched the analysis by offering a more complete view of the scientific landscape. This made it possible to identify trends in the evolution of publications, to recognize the main journals, countries, and most influential authors, and to explore the main thematic connections within the literature. The results of this bibliometric analysis are presented below.

3.1. General Bibliometric Analysis

The search was conducted in the following high-impact academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis. Boolean operators were used to combine the key terms: ergonomics AND psychosocial AND (productivity OR performance). The search yielded a total of 5891 documents, distributed as shown in

Table 1. Results of the initial search.

Database	Scopus	Web of Science	ScienceDirect	Taylor & Francis
Total number of documents	230	140	2424	3097

; however, due to viewing restrictions in Taylor & Francis, only 4794 articles were accessible for detailed analysis (Table S1).

3.1.1. Temporal Evolution of Publications

The general bibliometric analysis showed an increasing trend in scientific production in Figure 1 from 1993 onwards, showing a minimum of 50 publications per year, with a significant peak after 2022. This increase can be explained by the strengthening of occupational health policies, advances in evaluation technologies, and the growing recognition of mental health as a key component of productivity.

3.1.2. Main Scientific Journals

The 4794 accessible articles were published in 933 scientific journals, with the following standing out by volume and impact: Ergonomics, Applied Ergonomics, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, and International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, as shown in Figure 2.

3.1.3. Keyword Co-Occurrence Network

Regarding the keyword analysis, 6710 unique terms were identified. To facilitate visualization, a minimum occurrence threshold of 10 times and the 50 most frequent keywords were established.

Figure 3 presents a dense co-occurrence network in which the interrelationships between the most frequent keywords are visualized. The size of the nodes represents the frequency of occurrence of each term, and the colors group the concepts into thematic clusters according to their semantic proximity.

Figure 4 on the other hand, shows the same network based on the 50 most frequent keywords, but with a more open layout that allows for observing more clearly the dispersion and association between terms.

The most frequent keywords include ergonomics (771), human (623), risk factors (331), occupational health (194), musculoskeletal disorders (188), psychosocial factors (151), productivity (140), and job performance (135). This frequency reaffirms the centrality of the topics addressed in the study.

3.1.4. Network of Collaboration Between Authors

A total of 12,889 authors were identified, of whom 229 presented five or more publications. Among them, 52 showed active scientific collaboration networks as shown in Figure 5. The most productive authors were Neumann, W. Patrick (32), Grosse, Eric H (30), Oakman, Jodi (24), Glock, Christoph H. (18), and Carayon, Pascale (16), forming relevant nuclei of academic leadership.

This general analysis constitutes a robust basis for the more detailed analysis presented below.

3.2. Application of Inclusion Criteria

After the general exploratory analysis of all the documents retrieved, the inclusion criteria defined for this review were applied. This stage aimed to identify only those articles that explicitly addressed the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and labor productivity. The criteria applied were as follows:

• English language;
• Open access;
• Primary research publications.

Table 2. Search results.

Database	Scopus	Web of Science	ScienceDirect	Taylor & Francis
Total number of documents	230	140	2424	3097
English Language	213	135	2414	3090
Research articles	122	120	1528	2565
Open access	38	34	266	247

summarizes the documents retrieved in each database according to the search criteria:

3.3. Screening and Selection of Studies: Application of Rayyan and PRISMA Methodology

After the initial search, the 585 open access papers were selected and downloaded in .RIS format for processing. These articles were managed using the Rayyan tool, which facilitated the organization and management of the information, as well as optimizing the analysis of the data collected. Likewise, the selection process was structured according to the stages of the PRISMA methodology [16], which included the following:

• Elimination of duplicates: A total of 23 duplicate records were detected and eliminated, leaving a total of 562 unique documents for review.
• Screening by keywords: A total of 161 studies were excluded because they contained terms considered irrelevant to the objectives of this review, such as review (58), nurses (17), COVID (15), university (15), hospital (14), children (13), robots (9), school (9), players (6), and robotics (5).
• Article retrieval: An attempt was made to retrieve the full text of the remaining 401 studies; however, it was not possible to access 5 of them, so they were excluded from the analysis.
• Eligibility assessment: A total of 396 papers were evaluated by analyzing their title and abstract, considering as inclusion criteria that they addressed the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and labor productivity. A total of 280 articles that did not present a clear relationship with the thematic categories were excluded, leaving 116 articles selected for the final analysis.

The complete process of identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion of studies is detailed in Figure 6 of the PRISMA flow chart [16].

3.4. Distribution and Characterization by Thematic Categories

Once the selection process was completed, the 116 articles included in this review were organized in a database developed in Microsoft Excel, where key variables such as title, authors, year of publication, journal, country of affiliation, and database of origin were recorded (Table S2). This organization facilitated the analysis of the temporal evolution of the publications, the main scientific journals, and the geographical distribution of the publications.

The distribution of the documents in each database by subject category is shown in

Table 3. Distribution by categories and databases.

Database	Ergonomic Risk Factors and Productivity	Psychosocial Risk Factors and Productivity	Ergonomic and Psychosocial Risk Factors and Productivity	Total
Scopus	2	2	4	8
Web of Science	3	3	5	11
ScienceDirect	13	13	29	55
Taylor & Francis	12	11	19	42
Total	30	29	57	116

.

3.4.1. Methodological Quality of the Studies

Overall, the methodological assessment of the included studies reflected a high level of quality. In

Table 4. Distribution by categories of the quality of the studies.

Thematic Category	Checklist	Quality	Number of Studies
Ergonomic risk factors and productivity	CASP	Good	7
		Fair	3
		Poor	0
	NHLBI	Good	18
		Fair	2
		Poor	0
Psychosocial risk factors and productivity	CASP	Good	12
		Fair	4
		Poor	0
	NHLBI	Good	9
		Fair	4
		Poor	0
Ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity	CASP	Good	16
		Fair	8
		Poor	0
	NHLBI	Good	25
		Fair	8
		Poor	0

, most of the articles, regardless of whether they addressed ergonomic risk factors, psychosocial risk factors, or a combination of both regarding productivity, were rated as “Good” quality. This pattern was observed in both CASP and NHLBI assessments. Also, a smaller proportion of studies were rated as “Fair” quality, and none were rated as “Poor” quality. This homogeneous behavior suggests that the studies analyzed present a solid methodological basis, which reinforces the reliability of the findings synthesized in this review.

3.4.2. Characterization of the Articles

After reviewing the methodological quality of the articles, the studies selected for the bibliometric analysis were characterized in three thematic blocks that address the relationship between labor productivity and different types of risk factors: (1) ergonomic risk factors, (2) psychosocial risk factors, and (3) the combination of both approaches.

(1)

Ergonomic risk factors and productivity:

Ergonomic risk factors and their impact on productivity have been analyzed from different perspectives, ranging from the evaluation of methodologies to improve ergonomic design to their impact on occupational health. The studies included in this category agree that the application of ergonomic strategies not only favors the physical well-being of workers but also has a direct effect on organizational performance. Among the most frequently mentioned practical recommendations are the redesign of the physical work environment, the incorporation of active breaks, and the implementation of structured tools and training adapted to each type of task. These actions aim to prevent fatigue, musculoskeletal disorders, and other negative effects associated with poor working conditions.

For example, research such as [20,21] highlight the role of ergonomics in improving productivity through adaptive tools and leadership focused on workers’ well-being. These studies underline that ergonomic systems integrated with automation and organizational policies generate significant benefits at both the individual and collective levels.

In the field of ergonomic risk factors, the high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and work style-related risks is highlighted, and studies [22,23,24,25,26] underline the importance of these risk factors. Inadequate postures, repetitive movements, and poor workstation conditions are directly related to decreased productivity due to musculoskeletal disorders. Furthermore, this research highlights that the implementation of ergonomic interventions can reduce the prevalence of these conditions and improve work efficiency.

Likewise, research such as [10,27] highlight the relevance of integrated methodologies in ergonomic design and evaluation. The former proposes a multivariate methodology that connects ergonomics, safety, and productivity, being applicable in complex work environments, and the latter stresses the importance of integrating ergonomic systems efficiently to improve both worker well-being and business performance. There is also methodological diversity in the way productivity is measured: from self-reports and functional assessments to technological monitoring tools. This variety reveals that there is still no clear standardization of the concept.

In addition, four studies were identified that made a gender distinction in the description of the sample, either by specifying the proportion of male and female participants or by focusing only on one gender. Article [28] reported that musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) were common in both sexes, but with a higher prevalence in women, especially in the lumbar region, neck, and shoulders.

Regarding the relationship between ergonomic risk factors and labor productivity, 30 articles were identified within the category, of which only 4 presented quantitative data that allowed establishing such a relationship through statistical analysis. A prominent example is study [29], which provides empirical evidence on the positive and significant effect of ergonomics on work performance in the Kenyan manufacturing sector. This study employed a cross-sectional design with a sample of 108 companies and measured productivity through productive time, target achievement, and value added per employee. Regression results revealed that as workplace safety ergonomics improves by 100%, employee productivity rate increases by 57.9%, employee productive time increases by 81.9%, and employee task accomplishment increases by 79.9%.

(2)

Psychosocial risk factors and productivity:

The studies included in this thematic category consistently highlight the relevance of psychosocial factors on labor productivity, both in terms of performance and overall well-being. One of the most recurrent practical recommendations is the implementation of participatory organizational interventions. By involving employees in the design of solutions, these interventions have proven to be effective in reducing mental workload, stress, and other psychosocial risks that negatively affect performance, while promoting favorable conditions such as organizational support and positive leadership.

For example, study [30] shows that authentic leadership and social support in the workplace are essential for increasing work engagement, which improves productivity and reduces turnover. The analysis showed that the quality of leadership directly affects the perception of the work environment and the willingness to achieve organizational goals. In a similar vein, study [31] found that promoting health and reducing psychological stress in the workplace are key to improving job performance. The study identified that people with lower stress and higher emotional support have a significant increase in personal effectiveness, underscoring the importance of mental health-focused programs as strategies to increase productivity. In addition, article [32] mentions that the presence of psychosocial risk factors not only affects workers’ well-being but also increases the probability of making mistakes and suffering accidents.

In the area of lifestyles and their relationship with psychosocial risk factors, study [33] analyzes how lifestyle habits and psychosocial risks influence the work efficiency of older employees. The results indicated that 44.4% of the workers had good work ability, while 36.4% had moderate work ability. Significant predictors included good physical and mental health, a high level of control, and low job insecurity.

In a complementary way, study [34] evaluates various strategies for managing stress in the workplace, identifying that an adequate implementation of psychosocial policies can reduce absenteeism and improve the quality of the work environment. These strategies, based on structural equation modeling, underline the importance of integrating systematic approaches to manage psychosocial risks. In addition, five studies conducted a gender-differentiated analysis of the results, considering that men and women experience psychosocial factors in the work environment differently. One of these studies [31] found that personal and collective efficacy are negatively correlated with stress, which hurts work engagement and job satisfaction. In addition, the same study reported that women had significantly higher levels of psychological stress than men according to an ANOVA analysis. The differences were especially marked in dimensions such as perceived effort (F = 5.09; p < 0.05), confusion (F = 7.84; p < 0.01), anxiety with depressive symptoms (F = 25.22; p < 0.001), and physical problems (F = 24.39; p < 0.001).

Regarding the methods used to assess productivity, the studies used different approaches. Some used self-report questionnaires that explored workers’ perceptions of their performance and well-being, while others used organizational metrics or proxy indicators, such as work quality improvement, error reduction, or task redesign.

Based on the relationship between psychosocial risk factors and productivity, 29 articles were identified that address this issue from theoretical and qualitative approaches or through organizational interventions. Although some studies include quantitative components, none establish a direct and quantifiable relationship through statistical analysis, such as correlations, regressions, or analysis of variance. Most results are presented in terms of subjective perceptions of the work environment, employee satisfaction, or demand–resource balance.

(3)

Ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity:

The interaction between psychosocial and ergonomic risk factors in the work environment directly influences the well-being and productivity of workers, consolidating itself as a key aspect in organizational performance management. According to article [35], a high mental workload generates an increase in musculoskeletal disorders, and an inadequate ergonomic design can amplify the negative effects of psychosocial demands. This is corroborated by study [36], which highlights how poor ergonomic conditions and unmanaged psychosocial risks, such as physical stress and work pressure, increase the likelihood of occupational accidents, affecting both the physical and emotional health of workers.

Exposure to psychosocial risks is also closely related to musculoskeletal problems, as described in article [28] regarding these risks. High job demands combined with insufficient support increase the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders, which reduces the ability of workers to effectively perform their duties. This demonstrates that psychosocial risks must be managed alongside physical risks to ensure a healthy and productive work environment.

This is complemented by the findings of article [37], which highlights the importance of understanding the interaction between mental workload and physical demands, suggesting that a well-designed environment that balances these factors could improve productivity by minimizing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders and improving employee behavior and attitudes. Similarly, research such as [11,38] highlight the importance of transformational leadership and the integration of ergonomic partner approaches to improve work engagement and productivity. These strategies, which include redesigning the work environment and implementing wellness programs, promote a healthy environment that benefits both employees and organizations.

Another relevant aspect is the influence of gender differences. Of the studies reviewed, 11 differentiated between men and women in the description of the sample, although only 1 analyzed the results according to gender. In that study [37], it was found that women reported 18.7% more mental workload than men based on scores on the NASA-TLX instrument, a result that was also associated with higher levels of anxiety and certain personality traits. This evidence suggests that intervention strategies should consider gender-sensitive approaches for more effective risk management.

Likewise, the studies analyzed highlight common dimensions such as workload, stress, job satisfaction, control, social support, physical workload, and job design. However, aspects such as work/family conflict, burnout, or autonomy were little addressed, which shows gaps in the literature. There is also great variability in the way productivity was measured. Some studies used self-reports, others relied on general benchmarks, and only a few applied organizational metrics or formal indicators such as absenteeism and performance. This methodological heterogeneity makes comparison between studies difficult and underlines the need for standardization.

On the other hand, study [8] analyzes the physical environment and its relationship with mental health and organizational productivity. The study, based on zero-order correlation and multiple regression techniques, in which 1830 office workers were included to evaluate the analysis of physical working conditions, revealed that the quality of the physical environment, including factors such as light, ventilation, and noise, has a significant effect on workers’ stress levels and mental well-being. It is concluded that the optimization of physical space is key to fostering a healthy psychological environment and improving organizational productivity.

Another relevant aspect is the phenomenon of presenteeism, analyzed in article [39], carried out in a service company that includes both technical and scientific personnel as well as company support staff, shows that workers who come to work with health problems have lower performance, which harms the productivity of the organization. The average loss of productivity due to presenteeism was estimated at 16%, which equates to an average lost productivity cost of approximately GBP 4058.93 per person per year.

Although presenteeism can be interpreted as a work commitment, in the long term, it generates hidden costs, such as errors, lower quality results, and a cumulative deterioration of employees’ health. Several studies show that presenteeism manifests itself in different ways depending on the occupation. For example, in healthcare workers, it is often motivated by a strong sense of duty to patients, leading to working sick despite compromising the quality of care [40]. For teachers, it is related to high time pressure and emotional and institutional burnout. In Switzerland, a strong correlation was found between time pressure and burnout, partially mitigated by manager support. In South America, barriers to presenteeism and excessive burdens were identified [41]. In religious leaders, presenteeism is linked to work overload, the absence of clear role boundaries, and a perception of constant availability linked to spiritual mission. A mixed study of 519 clergy in Canada revealed that isolation, pervasive expectations, and a poor support network encourage presenteeism behaviors despite high emotional demands [42].

As for findings on the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity, 57 articles were identified that analyzed this relationship conceptually, qualitatively, or quantitatively. However, only five of them performed quantitative statistical analyses, such as correlations, regressions, factor analysis, or reliability tests. For example, article [38] shows that both ergonomic and psychosocial factors have a significant and positive effect on job performance, with values of r = 0.655 and r = 0.690, respectively, and a coefficient of determination of R² = 0.594.

3.4.3. Time Evolution of Publications

Figure 7 shows the temporal evolution of publications between 1986 and 2024, globally and by subject category. The global analysis shows a sustained growth in the number of articles published from 2010 onwards, with a notable increase in 2015. This pattern is maintained in the rest of the categories, although with different intensity; specifically, in the category of ergonomic risk factors and productivity, the number of publications begins to increase more steadily from 2014, reaching its highest point in 2024, while in psychosocial risk factors and productivity, a significant peak stands out in 2016, followed by a stable trend with slight variations between 2017 and 2024. In addition, the combined category of ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity also shows an increase from 2014, with a more accentuated growth from 2020 onwards.

3.4.4. Main Scientific Journals

The 116 articles were distributed in a total of 57 journals. Figure 8 identifies the most relevant journals in which the selected studies were published. The journals Procedia Manufacturing, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, and Ergonomics top the list with the highest number of publications, consolidating themselves as reference sources in this field, addressing topics related to ergonomics, applied sciences, and industrial aspects. The International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics and Applied Ergonomics stands out for offering an interdisciplinary perspective, which highlights its importance for future studies on ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors.

Different publication patterns were identified from the three thematic categories. In the first category, focused on ergonomic risk factors and productivity, journals oriented to occupational health, workplace design, and biomechanics predominate. The second category groups together publications dedicated to psychosocial risk factors, with those specializing in occupational well-being, stress, and work organization standing out. Finally, the integrative category groups together interdisciplinary journals that combine both approaches, which is evidence of a growing trend towards more holistic studies in the analysis of occupational risks.

3.4.5. Geographical Distribution of Publications

Figure 9 presents a geographical analysis of the countries with the greatest contribution to scientific publications. In this regard, Sweden, Poland, and the United States are positioned as the main countries due to their strong tradition in research on occupational health and working conditions. On the other hand, Switzerland, Finland, Mexico, Denmark, and South Africa are countries with lower production; however, they appear as contributors in this area.

When analyzing the distribution by thematic categories, relevant differences between countries can be identified. Firstly, in the studies focused exclusively on ergonomic risk factors and productivity, European countries such as Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands stand out. On the other hand, studies on psychosocial risk factors and productivity show a greater representation of countries such as Poland, Germany, and Italy. Finally, in the integrative category, which combines aspects of ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and their impact on productivity, the participation of the United States, Spain, Australia, and several countries such as Malaysia, Iran, Mexico, Romania, and Ethiopia stands out to a lesser extent. This diversity of evidence includes both the multidisciplinary approach and the geographical expansion of interest in occupational risk factors and productivity.

3.5. Bibliometric Visualization Using VOSviewer

3.5.1. Keyword Co-Occurrence Network

Figure 10 presents the co-occurrence network of the most relevant keywords within the 116 articles analyzed. The terms ergonomics and productivity are positioned as central nodes, reflecting their high frequency and thematic prominence. Associated concepts such as musculoskeletal disorders and human factors cluster around them, showing the link between physical ergonomics and occupational health.

Demographic terms such as human, female, male, and adult are also identified, forming a group of keywords oriented to the characterization of the populations studied. These are related to terms such as prevalence, risk factors, and major clinical studies, suggesting a quantitative approach in most of the research reviewed.

Finally, there is another grouping that includes words such as occupational health, work environment, and work performance, linked to the analysis of work environment and performance. The connection between these keywords, such as questionnaire and workplace, shows an interest in the practical application of assessment tools. Overall, the network reveals a comprehensive approach combining physical, psychosocial, and organizational dimensions.

Table 5. Percentage of occurrence of keywords.

Key Words	Percentage of Occurrence
Ergonomics	19%
Musculoskeletal disorders	14%
Productivity	7%
Workplace	7%
Adult	6%
Item	6%
Human	6%
Questionnaire	6%
Female	5%
Male	5%
Occupational health	5%
Psychosocial factors	5%
Human	4%
Major clinical study	4%
Work environment	4%
Job performance	4%
Prevalence	4%
Risk factors	4%
Human factors	4%

shows the percentage of occurrence of the most frequent keywords identified in the 116 articles analyzed, highlighting the high prevalence of the term ergonomics (19%) and musculoskeletal disorders (14%), supporting its central position in the co-occurrence network (Figure 5). Terms directly related to the study objectives, such as productivity (7%) and workplace (7%), also show high frequencies. Likewise, the presence of words such as questionnaire and job performance reinforces the relevance of the quantitative approaches to occupational health and psychosocial factors, the organizational approach in the literature reviewed. This frequency distribution visually complements the structure of the network and confirms the existence of clearly differentiated thematic groupings.

3.5.2. Collaboration Network Among Authors

In total, 416 authors were identified in the 116 articles selected. However, most of them do not present a high frequency of joint publication. Only Forsman, Mikael and Lind, Carl Mikael, participated in three publications, which positions them as the authors with the highest recurrence in the sample. Both lead the co-authorship network generated by the VOSviewer 1.6.20 tool, standing out as central nodes within their respective clusters, as shown in Figure 11.

Likewise, among the twelve authors who participated in two articles, only Rolander, Bo and Rosa, and Linda Maria appear represented within the visualized network, being part of defined collaboration clusters. The rest of the authors with double appearances do not show visible connections in the generated map, suggesting that their collaborations took place in more isolated contexts or outside the main identified co-authorship cores. Among them are Zolnierczyk-Zreda, Dorota; Claudio, David; Niño, Valentina; Monfort, Scott M.; Oakman, Jodi; Bugajska, Joanna; Malinska, Marzena; Thrvaldsen, Trine; Komgsvik, Trond; and Holmen, Ingunn Marie.

4. Discussion

This study shows a bibliometric review of general research patterns with the aim of providing a broader perspective of the field of occupational safety and health. This study also included a bibliometric analysis of the total number of articles retrieved (n = 4794) before the application of the inclusion criteria. This phase allowed us to identify that the evolution of publications began significantly in 1993; however, a varied increase is evidenced over time, highlighting a sustained increase from 2014, with the last 4 years standing out. Regarding the most influential journals, Ergonomics, Applied Ergonomics, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, and the International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics mainly stand out. Regarding the network of co-occurrence of keywords, an important group related to more general aspects of ergonomics, occupational health, safety, occupational, ergonomic and psychosocial risks, and productivity stand out, while another group is related to work environment factors such as workplace, work environment, occupational exposure, and priority journal, while the other group is related to aspects on the characteristics of the population, the approach, and the methodologies used in the studies. Regarding co-authorship networks, Neumann, W. Patrick, with 32 publications, Grosse, Eric H., with 30, Oakman, Jodi, with 24, Glock, Christoph H., with 18, and Carayon, Pascale, with 16 stand out.

There are systematic and bibliometric analyses that have individually addressed ergonomic risk factors [43,44,45], psychosocial risk factors [46,47,48], and work productivity [49,50]. To a lesser extent, bibliometric studies have also been identified that analyze these concepts in pairs, such as the relationship between ergonomic risk factors and productivity [51,52,53,54], psychosocial risk factors and productivity [55,56,57,58], or ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors [59,60]. Furthermore, no bibliometric reviews addressing all three elements together have been identified so far. Therefore, the present study offers a broader and deeper insight into this field by examining how ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors are related to work productivity from a comprehensive approach. This approach makes it possible to address the problem in a more holistic way, considering the complexity of work environments and their impact on the physical, mental, and organizational well-being of workers.

To this end, the PRISMA methodology [16] was used, which provides clear guidelines for documenting search strategies, study selection criteria, and data synthesis methods, thus promoting transparency and methodological rigor. Several studies have incorporated this methodology in their bibliometric analyses because of its ability to reinforce the consistency and robustness of the results.

Article quality review methods such as CASP [61] and NHLBI [62] made it possible to identify with greater precision the strength of the available evidence and to recognize common patterns of weakness, such as lack of justification of the sample size, poor description of the data collection procedures, or the absence of exclusion criteria. The application of these tools not only strengthened the review by incorporating a structured critical analysis but also highlighted the need to raise methodological standards in research addressing the relationship between ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity. These results reinforce the usefulness of applying rigorous evaluation frameworks as an integral part of thematic bibliometric reviews.

To complement this analysis, the software VOSviewer 1.6.20 [19] was used, which allows the construction and visualization of bibliometric maps representing relationships between authors, keywords, countries, journals, and thematic topics. In this study, VOSviewer was used specifically for the analysis of co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence, due to the limitations of the .RIS format used to import the documents. Although VOSviewer supports this format, the structure of the RIS files from the ScienceDirect and Taylor & Francis databases do not contain fields to perform certain types of visualizations. Despite these limitations, the software made it possible to identify collaborative networks between authors and the main concepts addressed in the literature, thus providing a graphical representation useful for interpreting the thematic development of the area of study.

The articles analyzed in this bibliometric study refer to labor or organizational productivity with emphasis on various dimensions such as repeated disclosure of organizational objectives and programs, job descriptions of workers, stress levels, absenteeism, presenteeism and organizational commitment, capacity, job recognition, organizational motivation, performance feedback, support, credibility, and environmental compatibility through quantitative and qualitative methods; however, few studies analyze in depth to identify a quantitative analysis as a variable of interest, but only a conceptual or comparative analysis.

The review of this bibliometric analysis revealed a marked heterogeneity in the methods used, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to assess ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors and productivity. Some studies use validated instruments, such as the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) or the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), while others rely on ad hoc surveys without validation or internal organizational metrics. Productivity, for its part, is measured in many ways, from subjective self-reports to objective economic indicators, absenteeism records, or supervisor evaluations. This methodological dispersion makes comparison between studies difficult and prevents integrated analysis or meta-analysis, revealing an important methodological gap. The present study maps this fragmentation, providing an overview of the approaches used and highlighting the need for standardized frameworks for future research.

This bibliometric analysis was contrasted with eight similar studies [14,45,46,47,50,52,54,59] that allowed us to identify common patterns, relevant differences, and gaps in the literature about temporal evolution, main journals, and countries, as well as keywords and networks of authors, providing a broader and more informed view of the current state of the research in this field.

The temporal evolution of scientific production shows an increasing trend of research on ergonomic and psychosocial risk factors linked to productivity. In the present analysis, a gradual increase is observed since 2010, with a significant peak in 2015 and a sustained upward trend from 2019 onwards. This behavior is consistent with that reported in other studies, where accelerated growth is also identified in the last decade, especially between 2015 and 2020. This pattern suggests a growing interest in comprehensively addressing the relationship between working conditions and organizational performance, possibly motivated by regulatory changes, advances in occupational health, and greater recognition of these factors as key elements in work management.

As for the most recurrent journals, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Procedia Manufacturing, and Ergonomics stand out. When compared with the studies reviewed, the constant presence of journals such as Safety Science, Ergonomics, and International Journal of Production Economics is identified, which are consolidated as references in the analysis of occupational risks, well-being, and productivity. However, in contrast to the present analysis, other research were found that give greater prominence to journals focused on organizational psychology and public health, such as the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology.

As for the geographical distribution of scientific production, while previous reviews place the United States, China, England, and Australia as the main producers of the scientific literature on this topic, the present analysis shows a more diverse distribution. Countries such as Sweden and Poland lead the world production, followed by the United States, Australia, and Spain. In studies focusing on psychosocial risks, Poland, Germany, and Italy stand out, while Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland lead in ergonomic risks. As for studies that jointly address both types of risks, the United States, Spain, Australia, and Poland have a greater presence.

Unlike other works that focus on technical aspects such as accident prevention, process design, or risk analysis, or on psychological approaches such as leadership, organizational culture, or job satisfaction, this bibliometric analysis proposes a more comprehensive view. The keywords identified reflect an approach that not only considers the physical risks arising from the work environment but also those of a mental and social nature, allowing a broader understanding of the elements affecting labor productivity.

Finally, in terms of authorship, a low recurrence of researchers was observed, resulting in small collaborative networks with little interrelation. Although some groups with connections were identified, a solid collaborative structure was not formed. This fragmentation has also been reported in the studies reviewed, where scientific production advances in parallel but with little cooperation among authors, which evidences the need to strengthen more integrated and interdisciplinary research networks.

5. Conclusions

This bibliometric study addressed two complementary levels of analysis: a general mapping of the scientific landscape from the 4794 articles retrieved and a detailed analysis of 116 studies selected under specific methodological criteria. This strategy made it possible to identify not only the main thematic lines, journals, countries, and relevant authors but also broad patterns of collaboration, temporal evolution, and use of keywords. Since 2010, there has been a growing trend in scientific production on occupational risk factors and productivity, with a notable peak in 2020, evidencing an increasing interest in comprehensively understanding how physical and psychosocial factors impact work performance.

Despite this growth, important gaps in the literature were identified. Among them, the scarcity of quantitative studies that empirically evaluate the relationship between risk factors and productivity stands out, since most of the articles included use qualitative or conceptual approaches. Likewise, high methodological heterogeneity was observed, especially in the way productivity is measured, which makes it difficult to compare studies and generate solid evidence. Therefore, it is recommended that future research adopt more standardized methodologies and rigorous quantitative approaches, with validated instruments and comparable designs, which will allow progress toward evidence-based interventions.

It should be noted that, to obtain a broader perspective of the field, the terms “ergonomics”, “psychosocial”, and “productivity” were used as key words, instead of expressions such as “risk factors”. This decision made it possible to include relevant studies that address these factors implicitly, without necessarily naming them with such terminology.

The diversity of disciplinary areas, such as engineering, psychology, health, and management, in which the studies are developed, reflects the multidimensional nature of this problem. Also, the identification of three thematic categories—ergonomic risk factors and productivity, psychosocial risk factors and productivity, and the combination of these three concepts—highlights the evolution of the field towards more integrative approaches. The keyword co-occurrence network reinforces this trend, showing an increasing interconnection between concepts such as ergonomics, occupational health, musculoskeletal disorders, and organizational performance.

From a geographical perspective, countries such as Sweden, Poland, and the United States lead the scientific production on the subject, reflecting their expertise in advanced working conditions. However, the growing interest in emerging regions, such as Mexico, represents an opportunity to develop contextualized research that addresses the particularities of local productive sectors.

Despite the progress observed, important challenges remain, such as the need to integrate interdisciplinary methodologies and adapt intervention strategies according to the characteristics of each industry and region. Evidence indicates that interventions that combine ergonomic improvements with psychosocial strategies not only contribute to the physical and mental well-being of workers but also favor productivity and organizational sustainability. In this sense, the present bibliometric study provides a solid basis to guide future research towards more holistic and contextualized approaches.

These findings reveal an expanding but still fragmented field of study, as well as persistent gaps, such as the limited number of studies that explicitly integrate both types of risk factors and that have solid quantitative data on their relationship with productivity. This methodological combination strengthens the basis for guiding future research and developing more integrative evidence-based intervention strategies.

Overall, these studies reflect the importance of adopting a comprehensive approach that combines innovative methodologies, specific interventions, and preventive strategies to maximize the benefits of ergonomics, psychosociology, and productivity in the work environment. This approach not only improves these aspects but also ensures the physical well-being of workers, contributing to the sustainable development of organizations.

However, the possible exclusion of relevant articles by restricting only open access, although necessary to ensure the availability of full texts, is a limitation that could have affected the completeness of the review. Similarly, the terms ergonomics, psychosocial, and work-related productivity or performance were considered in a general way. It is also recognized that these limitations may partially bias the representativeness of the findings, so complementary approaches such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered for future research.