Mapping 25 years of research on climate change and occupational health: A bibliometric study (1999–2024)

Résumé fourni par la source

BackgroundClimate change poses significant risks to worker health, especially for outdoor and vulnerable populations. Despite a growing body of research, global trends, thematic priorities, and collaboration patterns in the climate change-occupational health literature remain unclear.ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze WoS-indexed publications on climate change and occupational health to describe publication trends, key contributors and sources, collaboration structures, and thematic emphases, and to discuss underexplored areas highlighted by the mapping.MethodsA descriptive bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection. Analyses were limited to descriptive indicators (e.g., publication counts, citation metrics) with no inferential statistics. Publications were retrieved using "climate change" AND "occupational health" without restrictions on language, country, or journal. Duplicates and author name variations were manually checked. VOSviewer was used for citation analysis, co-authorship mapping, country/institution output, and keyword co-occurrence analysis.ResultsA total of 380 publications were analyzed, mostly in English. Output increased steadily, with citation peaks in 2023-2024. The most productive countries were the USA, Australia, and Canada; leading institutions included Australian National University, the University of Washington, and the University of Adelaide. Frequent keywords ("heat stress," "outdoor workers," "workplace adaptation") highlighted a focus on heat-related occupational risks.ConclusionResearch linking climate change and occupational health is growing, mainly focused on heat-related risks for outdoor workers, while psychosocial, demographic, and adaptation issues remain underexplored. More targeted studies are needed to guide policy, develop region-specific adaptation strategies, and reduce workforce vulnerability.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.