Since its introduction approximately 20 years ago, the Challenge-Hindrance Stress Model (CHM) has been widely accepted both among academic and practitioner audiences. The model posits that workplace stressors can be grouped into two categories. Hindrance stressors will interfere with performance or goals, while challenge stressors contribute to performance opportunities. These two categories of stressors are theorized to exhibit differential relationships with strain, with hindrance stressors being more consistently linked to psychological, physical, or behavioral strain compared to challenge stressors. Despite the popularity of this model, recent evidence suggests that the proposed differential relationship hypothesis has not consistently held true for all types of strain. Thus, a reexamination or modification of this paradigm is clearly warranted. In the present review, we describe existing evidence surrounding the CHM and describe the rationale for a shifting paradigm. We outline recent advances in research using the CHM, such as novel moderators and mediators, the need to explicitly measure challenge and hindrance appraisal and differentiate between hindrance and threat appraisal, the dynamic nature of these appraisals over time, and the recognition that a single stressor could be appraised simultaneously as both a challenge and a hindrance. Finally, we provide recommendations and future research directions for scholars examining stress and stress management through a CHM lens, including recommendations related to study design, the measurement of stressors, the integration of CHM with other models of stress, and interventions for stress management.

Workplace interventions that leverage social tactics to improve health and well-being are becoming more common. As an example, peer mental health support interventions aim to reduce stigma and promote treatment seeking in first responder populations. Given the social nature of these interventions, it is important to consider how the preexisting social context influences intervention outcomes. A peer mental health support intervention was delivered among first responders, and self-efficacy and intention to have supportive peer conversations were measured pre-and post-intervention. Trust in peers was measured prior to the intervention. Results suggest a floor effect may exist for self-efficacy, in which a foundational level of trust and pre-intervention self-efficacy may be needed to maximize intervention effectiveness. As the future of work brings complex safety and health challenges, collaborative solutions that engage multiple stakeholders (employees, their peers, and their organization) will be needed. This study suggests that more frequent attention to pre-existing intervention context, particularly social context in peer-focused intervention, will enhance intervention outcomes.

Contextual nuance holds value for occupational health and safety, particularly as workplace challenges and solutions become more complex. However, disciplines that inform occupational safety and health vary in the degree to which they target breadth and depth of understanding. The future of work presents challenges related to work, the workplace, and the workforce, and an appreciation of the context of industry will ready researchers and practitioners with the most informed solutions. Broadly developed solutions for future of work challenges may flounder without an appreciation for the context of industry, as evidenced by two examples provided in this review. As occupational safety and health disciplines answer the call provided by the future of work, this review provides an account for the value of industry context and recommendations for achieving both breadth and depth of scientific inquiry and practical reach.

The present study advances research on the negative consequences of precarious work experiences (PWE), which include perceptions of threats to one's job and financial security as well as a sense of powerlessness and inability to exercise rights in the workplace. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a backdrop, we examine how PWE relate to sickness presenteeism and worry about work-related COVID-19 exposure. In a 12-week, four-wave study of workers working fully in-person, perceptions of powerlessness and job insecurity were associated with presenteeism (e.g., general presenteeism as well as attending work with known or possible COVID-19 infection) and concerns about disease exposure at work. Whereas powerlessness primarily operated at the between-person level of analysis, job insecurity's effects emerged at both levels of analysis. A sense of powerlessness at work also predicted sending children to school/daycare sick. In sum, the findings suggest that precarity related to being able to keep one's job and a sense of powerlessness at work contribute to concerns about the risk of COVID-19 exposure at work and, simultaneously, behaviors that may contribute to the health risks faced by others. This research provides added support to the argument that precarious work should be addressed in order to improve both worker well-being and public health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).