Scientists, seafarers, technicians, and support staff working onboard research vessels (RVs) are essential to marine and polar science. However, the work-related factors shaping their health, performance, and long-term engagement remain underexplored. This scoping review advances understanding of psychosocial work conditions in offshore workplaces by synthesising evidence on psychosocial hazards and their associated health and work-related outcomes in RVs and other shipboard settings. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a two-phase search was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Phase 1 identified RV-specific studies, while Phase 2 incorporated evidence from related shipboard settings. In total, 247 studies were included. Data were thematically analysed and narratively synthesised, identifying 14 major themes and 70 subcategories of psychosocial factors and their outcomes. The findings indicate recurring, multi-layered risk pathways shaped by the interaction of three domains. First, operational demands associated with tasks, voyage stages, roles, work organisation, and technology integration. Second, complex social dynamics arising from dual hierarchies between scientists and crew, male-dominated environments, and multinational workplaces, may contribute to conflict, reduced cohesion, and limited inclusivity. Third, organisational climates that priorities financial and operational performance over health further intensify these pressures. These factors are compounded by structural and environmental constraints that limit recovery and access to support, contributing to cumulative resource depletion and increased risk of adverse outcomes. Early-career personnel appear particularly vulnerable, raising concerns about workforce sustainability. The review highlights several gaps and outlines targeted organisational and policy responses, calling for longitudinal, multi-level, and intervention-focused studies to improve psychosocial conditions in maritime settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yancheshmeh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: