Promoting positive mental health among young construction workers: the role of theory

Abstract The post-modern approach to improving young peoples’ mental health emphasizes the need to promote positive mental health. However, research on young construction workers’ mental health has focused mainly on negative mental health, e.g. depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety, and given far less attention to positive mental health. The aim of this research was to identify the reason for this trend and to propose an agenda for change. Based on the initial assumption that theory-use has contributed to this trend, we utilized the PICO and PRISMA-ScR frameworks to critically review the theoretical and conceptual models in published research on young construction workers’ mental health. Out of 367 articles retrieved, fourteen studies published between 2010 and 2023 qualified for inclusion. Eighteen different theories and frameworks were identified. Generally, studies focused on measuring the prevalence of symptoms of negative mental health. Theories and conceptual frameworks were mostly used to guide the identification of variables associated with negative mental health (e.g. age, workplace stressors, autonomy, etc.) and to explain the relationships among them. The identified theories and conceptual frameworks did not offer a positive conceptualisation of mental health, and as a result, no study theorized positive mental health. We offer a matrix for evaluating theory-use in research. We also identify and discuss the strengths and limitations of the current use of theory in published studies and provide recommendations on how theory-use can be improved to reorient construction research towards the promotion of positive mental health.


Introduction
Addressing the high prevalence of poor mental health among the youth is a priority issue on the global health plan (Patel et al. 2018).In line with this objective, key stakeholders of youth mental health, e.g. the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health have continuously advocated for a rethink of the mistaken view of mental health as a disease, but rather as a positive life experience (Lancet Psychiatry 2021, UNICEF 2021).As a result, all stakeholders, including researchers, have been encouraged to prioritize positive mental health (Lancet Psychiatry 2021).Consequently, studies that have explored positive mental health and its promotion among different populations and settings (e.g.Keyes 2006, 2013, Lamers 2011, Orpana et al. 2017) have established that good mental is achieved not just by eliminating symptoms of negative mental health, such as depression, stress, and anxiety, but by promoting positive mental health, i.e. , psychological (personal progress), emotional (good feelings), and social well-being (social connection and contribution), and preventing against its loss (Keyes 2013).
Despite this insight, construction research continues to focus on the problem of negative mental health among construction workers, both young and old (Milner and Law 2017).Accordingly, the current dominant framing of mental health in the construction management literature reflects a set of psychiatric conditions and symptoms (Milner andLaw 2017, Hutton et al. 2022).Polices and interventions for promoting mental health in the construction industry are, therefore, premised on the goal of reducing and eliminating of symptoms of mental illness (Hutton et al. 2022).This, when taken alone, is not adequate for helping young construction workers to achieve good mental health (Keyes 2013).This outcome, in fact, betrays a narrow focus and a lack of acknowledgement of the fact that mental health embodies a wide "spectrum of experiences and emotions inherent to life" as well as "a state of well-being" that make it possible for young people, including those who work in the construction industry to "achieve their full potential" for a good-quality life (Lancet Psychiatry 2021, p. 1).
Patterns observed in the broader health literature (Green 2014, Collins andStockton 2018) indicate a possible link between the one-sided fixation of research on negative mental health and the development and application of theory in research.In this context, the term "theory" encompasses theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks or models that may either be employed by researchers to frame a study, or that may emerge from a research study (Godfrey et al. 2010).We assume, therefore, that it is necessary to focus on theory-use to adequately understand the reason for the marginalization of positive mental health in construction management research.Consistent with Biesta et al. (2011), Meleis (2018), and Rasmussen (2017), it is our view that "high quality" use of theory can reorient construction management research towards adequately promoting the positive mental health of young construction workers.
The aim of this research, therefore, is to explore theory-use in research on young construction workers' mental health with the goal of understanding why there is a predominant focus on negative mental health in the construction management literature, and to propose an agenda for undertaking research that can adequately improve young construction workers' positive mental health.The specific research objectives include an analysis to identify existing theoretical models or frameworks that have been used or developed, to describe the theoretical purpose and aspects of theoretical thinking demonstrated in current research, and to propose an approach to theory-use that can drive construction research to promote positive mental health.Our focus is entirely on social theory -theories which capture social actors (e.g.individuals, social groups, and institutions) in the analysis of societal events -in academic construction inquiries.This exclusive focus is by no means a limitation because such theory-use, in addition to consolidating the construction management literature, helps "to break with taken-for-granted assumptions" and invariably results in the emergence of practical insight that is vital for addressing the policy-making needs of the industry (Schweber 2015).We adopted the broad definition of youth as any person between the ages of 15-35 years (inclusive) (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2018).
To begin to offer guidance that is germane, we provide some conceptual background through a brief review of the literature on mental health promotion.Next, we review the literature on the role of theory in research to understand what exactly constitutes theory-use and to generate a rudimentary matrix for analyzing theory use in the body of literature under consideration in this study.Subsequently, in line with the scholarly practice (e.g.Marton andWei Choo 2012, Richter andDixon 2022) in mainstream mental health, we evaluate our initial assumption of limited theory-use in construction mental health research by undertaking a critical scoping review of the theoretical foundations of published research on youth mental health in the construction management literature.Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings, and synthesize previous literature to generate plausible recommendations for improving theory-use as a means to improving research on young construction workers' mental health.
Through this study, we highlight the benefits of taking a theory-centric approach to conducting research that is fit for informing contemporary mental health policy and practice in the industry.The proposed recommendations have the potential to change the direction of mental health research within the construction management domain.

Promoting mental health: a post-modern philosophical perspective
The post-modern concept of health promotion lacks a universally accepted definition.Nonetheless, one of the fundamental descriptions of post-modern health promotion conceptualises it as the product of "health education" and "healthy public policy", which seeks to provide "empowerment" (Tones 1993, p. 3).Thus, any agent or agency -including researchers -who seek to undertake health promotion must work with the goal of empowering individuals and the whole society through education and public policy.Empowerment is achieved when such education and policy help individuals and social groups to successfully address the inequalities they face so as to become active contributors to the conditions necessary for the attainment of their own health and well-being.Tones (1993), in alluding to the principles of Primary Health Care adopted at the 1978 Alma Mata Conference advanced the concept of health promotion by articulating three of its salient characteristics.Firstly, it is holistic and takes a positive view of health as an asset which enables people to achieve the ultimate goal of living a life that is useful, both socially and economically.Secondly, the obligation for health promotion does not rest on medical practitioners alone, but rather requires input from a broad range of stakeholders.Thirdly, because health is fundamentally affected by one's physical, social, cultural, and economic environment, its promotion requires group effort.Thus, any attempt at promoting health, e.g. the formulation of public health policy, must consider peoples' overall circumstances.
Based on Tones' (1993) definition, it stands to reason that post-modern mental health promotion is ultimately aimed at empowering all people through a three-pronged approach.First, it favours a consideration of people's overall circumstances when making considerations about their mental health.Several studies have provided support for this view by emphasizing that managing mental health transcends the use of biomedical methods and considers influences such as social and historical events, as well as the effects of economic and power structures (Roy 2007, Nicholls 2012, Chapman 2019).
Second, post-modern mental health promotion creates opportunities for an inclusive, diverse, and collaborative approach to developing knowledge and the practice of mental health management.In connection with this, Nicholls (2012) notes that when building knowledge, there should be room for multiple interactions among different agents, a questioning of the usefulness of the concepts that underpin current knowledge, and the possibility of introducing new concepts.This is perhaps the reason why a recent review of the literature by Richter and Dixon (2022) revealed that viewpoints from people outside medical professions, such as social workers, policy makers, and those who have mental health challenges are progressively being considered in mental health promotion efforts.An especially notable outcome of the review was the increase in the number of models which give a voice to mental health service users and less priority to clinicians, thus suggesting that promoting mental health is no longer left to health professionals alone.
Third, and perhaps the most significant characteristic of the postmodern approach, is its overarching focus on the achievement of a positive state of being.In line with this, there is evidence of an increase in models which view mental health as a positive construct, seeking to conceptualize it using more subjective concepts of well-being (Richter and Dixon 2022).As a matter of fact, the notion of mental health being positive is supported by different scholars (e.g.Jan� e- Llopis et al. 2005, Keyes 2005, 2013) who have intimated that mental health promotion has the objective of increasing the magnitude of positive mental health (psychological, emotional, and social) while at the same time protecting against its loss.Unlike negative mental health management, which seeks to prevent or treat symptoms of illness among at-risk populations, modern mental health promotion is inclusive since it focuses on the entire population, whether mentally ill or not (Keyes 2013, p. 4).This trend is commensurate with the increasing dissatisfaction and consequent challenge of the negative and illness conceptualization of mental health by researchers, healthcare practitioners, and mental health service clients (Zachar and Kendler 2017).
Mental health, as currently defined by stakeholders such as the Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health, UNICEF (2021), and the WHO ( 2004) aligns with the post-modern view of mental health promotion since it primarily advocates viewing mental health as a positive concept.These stakeholders have recommended that any activity that seeks to improve the mental health of young people should comprehensively capture the "risk and protective factors" affecting young people, be situated within the relevant socio-cultural, political, and environmental setting of those concerned, and should always give way to relevant multi-stakeholder contribution (including marginalized youth) (Lancet Psychiatry 2021).It is this view of mental health promotion that we adopt in this study.

The importance of theory in research
The meaning of the term "theory" varies widely depending on its function and the context within which it is considered (Biesta et al. 2011).Nonetheless, it can generally be defined as a coherent and systematic presentation of propositions (theoretical statements) in relation to important questions about concepts associated with phenomena in a particular discipline.Although theories are abstract, they often represent "specification of entities" and interactions and relations between concepts (Schweber 2015) and can be presented as logical models or frameworks of "the context, process, and outcome" (Meleis 2012, p. 23) of physical or social events.Since it is already established that the postmodern way of promoting mental health is inclusive and social, it is reasonable to assert that a theoretical approach in this regard must also seek to embrace social theories.Our discussion therefore views theory through a social lens.The importance of theory in research is briefly reviewed next.

Theoretical purposes of research
Theory-use drives social research to serve different theoretical purposes, viz.: causal explanation, interpretation, emancipation, and autonomous theorizing (Biesta et al. 2011).The first three are directly associated with empirical research, whereas the last is not.Research conducted with the goal of causal explanation seeks to document and explain.This kind of research promotes objectivism by assuming that it is possible to gather important information through objective perception and experimentation without subjective human influence.Essentially, this kind of research utilizes theory through the development of specific hypotheses to guide the process of documentation and explanation (Rasmussen 2017).
In relation to its interpretation function, research seeks to comprehend real-world events by clarifying the causal associations between variables under observation through analysis of patterns and in some cases, connections between different factors, viewpoints, and dimensions or constructs.Interpretivist researchers also seek to use theory to add on to extant interpretations of phenomena.Interpretivism therefore uses theory in a way that contributes to the broader understanding of regular occurrences and encounters by bringing deeper meaning to the behaviors of individuals and social phenomena.In a deeper sense, the theory is basically operationalized to lay bare the manner in which "hidden power structures" affect the meanings ascribed to phenomena (Biesta et al. 2011, p. 226).
To undertake research with the goal of emancipation is to seek to attain "progressive social change" (Biesta et al. 2011).Emancipatory research, because it starts from a basic skepticism of extant knowledge, considers social actors' viewpoints to be unduly influenced by powerful forces within the actor hierarchy (Biesta et al. 2011, p. 231).This research purpose, therefore, goes far beyond just offering alternative understandings of phenomena (as in the case of interpretive research, which has no reason to be skeptical), to replacing or providing superior meanings than those already provided by social actors themselves (Biesta et al. 2011).Emancipatory research uses theory in a more critical way, and this affects a researchers' goal of theory-use; theorizing moves beyond informing "reflection and learning", to focusing on broadening insight on the influence of power and social structure on "theoriser and theorised" (Biesta et al. 2011, p. 231).
Autonomous theorizing is purely theoretical research work that seeks to provide alternative interpretations of existing, and perhaps, entrenched processes and practices in a particular discipline.An example is Liu et al.'s (2021) theorizing which sought to redefine coping from a predominantly reactionary to a proactive approach which incorporates culturally-related factors.
Autonomous theorizing looks at how to properly interpret variables under observation and most importantly, aid the conceptualization of the phenomena that a researcher seeks to understand (Biesta et al. 2011).If, for example, researchers wish to study coping as an antecedent of positive mental health, after engaging with Liu et al.'s (2021) theorizing, they will be able to conceptualise coping as behaviour that is culturally-oriented, proactive, and positive.This will inform the researchers' decisions about the specific variables they need to focus on and the kind of data they ought to collect, which will in turn influence their choices about research design.
Although autonomous theorizing is largely theoretical, it can also make practical contributions especially when it is done with the objective of helping to provide different descriptions of existing aspects of practice (Biesta et al. 2011).For example, autonomous theorizing can help us to see that subjective wellbeing is only one way to view positive mental health and go ahead to provide other descriptions.This has the practical implication of making some ways of thinking and communicating about mental health possible or more acceptable when providing mental healthcare, and making other ways unacceptable or even impractical.

Theoretical thinking in research
Theory is useful in research because it guides a researcher to describe, explain, predict, or prescribe responses, outcomes, conditions, situations, or interactions (Meleis 2018).The ability of a theory to lead to these is, however, underpinned by its central role of facilitating theoretical thinking on the part of a researcher.Theoretical thinking underpins the entire research process because it helps a researcher to obtain clarity of the variables under investigation and essentially determine the objective of the research work.This ultimately feeds into how results are evaluated in terms of their potential consequences (e.g.provision of lifestyle changes, and maintenance of health and well-being).These outcomes of theoretical thinking are what help researchers to establish a "cumulative knowledge base", which serves as the hallmark of expert knowledge and recognized disciplines (Meleis 2018).
Although theoretical thinking is evident throughout the entire research process, it is most critically evident in six key research activities, viz.: phenomenon identification; phenomenon definition; evaluation of theoryuse; proposition development and/or testing; data production and analysis; and description and/or interpretation of theoretical implications of findings (Meleis 2018).Identifying a phenomenon mainly involves recognizing which variable is worth studying in a particular discipline and how research questions related to this variable are relevant in that field of study and the society as a whole (Meleis 2018).Phenomenon identification also involves a detailed consideration of the researchers' connection with the research, e.g. the personal meanings attached by the researcher to the research, the benefits that the researcher derives from his or her role in the research, etc. Defining a phenomenon encompasses the determination of potential theories that can lead the researcher to find the right variables associated with a phenomenon of interest, how the variables relate to each other, and ultimately how the researcher can make recommendations with respect to the identified variables.
When a researcher arrives at a potential theory or theories, theory evaluation is the next step to take in determining those theories that would be most useful for achieving the aims of the research.As part of this process, it becomes necessary to determine the need for testing a theory, how this should be done, and the manner in which any results obtained can be applied to further develop theory, and sometimes, practice, within and perhaps, outside the disciplinary domain (Meleis 2018).This process often leads to the next step which is the emergence of theoretically-based ideas that result in the development and/or testing of propositions to direct research or theory testing.Once propositions have been developed, a researcher may determine the approach to data production and analysis (methodology) based on the study's guiding theory.This may be evident in the type of data collected, the procedures and stages of collecting and analyzing data, and the selection of research participants.At this stage, theory may also play a role in identifying and accessing needed expertise to sharpen and direct the focus of the methodology (Meleis 2018).
After testing a theory, the researcher moves on to interpret the findings in relation to the original theory (Meleis 2018).This is an iterative process in which questions may emerge about how study findings deepen existing knowledge and contribute new research questions both for existing knowledge and the new findings (Godfrey et al. 2010, Meleis 2018).This process is crucial because it can lead to the generation of novel ideas and even the emergence of new theory (Godfrey et al. 2010).
Each of the six research activities described is theory-centric and embodies a fundamental aspect of conducting theory-guided research; each ought to be viewed as part of the function of research in a discipline.Such use of theory is what truly distinguishes the scientific or academic way of knowing from other forms of inquiry about social phenomena in the realworld (Schweber 2015).In contrast to the pervasive theory-practice dichotomy, Meleis (2012, p. 23) emphasizes the importance of theory in every discipline by stating the following: theory is the goal of all scientific work; theorizing is a central process in all scientific endeavors, and theoretical thinking is essential to all professional undertakings.
Thus far, we have discussed the possible theoretical functions of research and salient aspects of theoretical thinking at key stages of the research process.Based on these, we present a rudimentary analytical matrix (Table 1) to guide the next part of this study, which is a critical review of the theoretical perspectives that have influenced research on young construction workers' mental health.

Methods
The research aim and objectives were examined using a scoping review approach.As a method in its own right which can be used to undertake an independent examination of literature (Tricco et al. 2018), the scoping review approach was chosen over a traditional systematic review because the study area is still emerging (Nwaogu et al. 2019) and thus, the research studies are largely heterogeneous in terms of sample, methodology, and the sub-topics considered under mental health (Tricco et al. 2018).
This review was guided by the PICO -Problem, Intervention, Context, and Outcomes -framework (Stern et al. 2014).This framework has been recommended as the most ideal for determining key issues during the development of the research question, the determination of keywords for the literature search (see § "Search terms and strategies"), development of inclusion and exclusion criteria for the articles obtained (see § "Inclusion and exclusion criteria"), and the data collection and analysis (see § "Data extraction, analysis, and reporting") when conducting reviews with the goal of assessing the outcomes of an intervention or the degree to which its intended impacts are achieved (Munn et al. 2018).In the case of this review, the main items under PICO were expressed as follows: Problem (mental health promotion), Intervention (theory-use, i.e., theorization, theory development, and theory utilization), Context (research on youth mental health in the construction industry), and Outcomes (contribution of theory for promoting mental health).
The procedures for literature search, data extraction, and reporting were mainly based on the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework" (Tricco et al. 2018).This framework spells out the 20 mandatory and two optional items to report when systematically synthesizing knowledge on the range, extent, and characteristics of the literature on a topic of interest (see § "Data extraction, analysis, and reporting" for further details).PRISMA-ScR was chosen for this review particularly because it has utility for mapping evidence such as the origins, applications, and limitations associated with the theories and concepts used in a body of literature comprising studies that are heterogenous in nature (Tricco et al. 2018).
The databases used for the searches were PubMed, ISI Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, PsycINFO, PsycExtra, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, as well as the generaluse search engine Google.Websites of a range of occupational health organizations and other groups interested in youth mental health in the construction industry were also searched to ascertain information on grey literature.This included organizations such as the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention [AISRAP], and Mates in Construction.The publication search was not restricted to any time period.
Following the databases search, we undertook a secondary search from within the references contained in the retrieved publications.In all, 367 papers were retrieved from the entire search process.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included in this review if they first satisfied a minimum of one of the following: (1) original research or reviews (systematic, scoping, etc.) on any form of negative (e.g.anxiety, drug-use disorder, etc.) or positive (e.g.emotional well-being, resilience, etc.) mental condition reported among construction workers aged 35 years or younger in any construction occupation; (2) if focusing on the wider group of construction workers, results and discussions had to be categorized by age sub-groups and have at least 30% of the sample being workers aged 35 years and below, as this is the minimum ratio of sub-sample to sample size recommended to ensure representativeness of results and conclusions for samples below 1000 (Suskie 1996, Nardi 2003, Neuman 2007).Studies whose sample mean age was about 35 years or below were also included.Studies that lacked a well-defined sample were retained if their findings and discussions focused on young construction workers; (3) if focusing on different types of industries and had a section of results and discussions specifically on young construction workers' mental health.Studies whose sample were students who doubled up as construction workers were also retained.We excluded articles if they were editorials or protocols of studies that had not yet been conducted.All duplicates and non-English articles (n ¼ 59) were removed before screening.The process of screening involved title, abstract, and keywords examination to ascertain the relevance of publications for the review.This led to the exclusion of 260 articles, leaving behind 48 studies for detailed full text assessment.We did not undertake a rigorous evaluation of the quality of methods used in the studies included in this review because it is not of paramount interest in scoping reviews, especially those on theory-use (Godfrey et al. 2010).Team consensus was relied upon to finally verify the overall eligibility of publications for this review (Frimpong et al. 2023).Following this, the final criteria of being theory-centric was applied, and 34 ineligible articles were excluded.An article which had focused on positive mental health was excluded to prevent bias.The remainder of the excluded articles did not show any form of theory-use, i.e., utilization, theorization, or theory development.In total, fourteen studies were retained for this review (see § "References").This number constitutes a sample size (n ¼ 14) that exceeds the number of studies included in published reviews on mental health and theory-use in research (e.g.Asare-Doku et al. 2021: n ¼ 3; Marton and Wei Choo 2012: n ¼ 4; Godfrey et al. 2010: n ¼ 9;Milner et al. 2014: n ¼ 13) and is, therefore, acceptable for informing the current review.Figure 1 shows the search process for the scoping review.

Data extraction, analysis, and reporting
We adapted and merged the essential portions of the PRISMA-ScR framework (see Table 1 in Tricco et al. 2018) with our rudimentary analytical matrix to create a tool for extracting and summarizing the data on theory-use.Using this tool, general data that we extracted from each study included author(s) names, country of origin and focus, study aim and objectives, study setting and characteristics of sample, and main findings.We also extracted the names, original literature sources of theories, and the specific function of theory (theoretical and conceptual frameworks) for each study.Furthermore, we extracted data to enable us to describe the mode of theory operationalization and its contribution to the research (Soares and Yonekura 2011) as demonstrated by the theoretical purpose of the research and the aspects of theoretical thinking evident in each study.We contacted authors of the retrieved studies, if needed, to obtain further details on the theories they utilized.Our final results were reported and discussed in narrative form.

Description of studies included in the review
The literature search yielded 367 studies.Forty-eight of these focused wholly or partly on young construction workers, out of which 14 (29.17%)met the inclusion criteria.The studies focused on five key themes, viz.: psychosocial risk factors and mental health impacts, coping practices, mental health conditions and symptoms, mental health improvement, and work-life balance.All included studies were journal articles and ranged in publication date from 2010 to 2023.Eight of the studies (based on the location of the first author) were from Australia, and for the remaining studies, one each was from South Africa, China, Pakistan, Canada, Hong Kong, and Italy.More than 50% of the included research (n ¼ 8: 57.14%) was on the Global North context (or high-income countries), especially Australia (n ¼ 5).Of the remaining studies, four (28.57%) focused on the Global South (or lower and middle-income countries) while two (14.29%) had a global focus.Disciplines involved included built environment (n ¼ 12: 85.72%), health sciences (n ¼ 1: 7.14%), and multidisciplinary collaboration, e.g.built environment, health, mathematics, business, and social sciences (n ¼ 1: 7.14%).Research approaches used included quantitative methods (n ¼ 8: 57.14%), mixed methods (n ¼ 4: 28.57%), and systematic reviews (n ¼ 2: 14.29%).Table 2 contains further details of the studies included in the literature review.

Theory-use in construction research on youth mental health
Details of theory-use in the literature is provided in Table 3. Nineteen different theories were identified, and these were from disciplines such as biology, public health, social science, and human behaviour in Theory served four specific functions of in the included studies, viz.: (1) guiding identification of variables of interest; (2) providing a framework for examining relationships between variables; (3) justification of methodological decisions; and (4) facilitating the conceptualization of phenomena and extension of existing models.The majority (n ¼ 9) of the studies had multiple theoretical purposes, mostly causal explanatory and interpretive.Only two studies had a single theoretical purpose, viz.: interpretive.Overall, the included studies demonstrated different levels of theoretical thinking (n ¼ 1: three aspects; n ¼ 1: four aspects; n ¼ 4: five aspects; n ¼ 8: all six aspects).The most demonstrated aspects of theoretical thinking were "phenomenon identification" and "presentation of findings", followed by "data production and analysis".The least demonstrated aspect of theoretical thinking was "proposition development/testing" (n ¼ 10).

Discussion
Overall, all fourteen studies reviewed, which constitute about one-third of the published literature utilized theory for different reasons throughout the process of research.We now discuss these studies in terms of  (continued) their "theoretical purpose" and "theoretical thinking" and present the implications for research.

Theoretical purposes of the included studies
For the majority of the papers reviewed, theory mostly served an interpretive or causal explanatory function, with a significant number having a combination of the two purposes.This was evident in several ways.Leung et al. (2010), for example, developed a conceptual framework a priori to guide the identification of stressors affecting emotional health, while Frimpong et al.'s (2023) use of Coping theory (Carver et al. 1989, Lazarus 1993) was purely to guide the classification and synthesis of coping practices and determinants identified through a systematic literature review.An advanced demonstration is the exploration of relationships between variables, as shown by Turner and Lingard (2020), who combined the interpretive and causal explanatory theoretical purposes to examine the link between mental and physical health, and their determinants.This was specifically achieved through both a deductive and inductive operationalization of the Work Ability Model (Ilmarinen et al. 2005(Ilmarinen et al. , 2015)).More advanced demonstrations include building and validating new frameworks (e.g., Bowen et al. 2014, Zaniboni et al. 2016) and advancing existing models (e.g., Turner and Lingard 2016).Despite the use of theory, these studies focused wholly on negative aspects of mental health (e.g.Bowen et al. 2014: drug use and symptoms of stress; Maqsoom et al. 2020: psychosocial stress) or partially on negative mental health and marginally on the dimensions of positive mental health (e.g.Sunindijo and Kamardeen 2020: anxiety, stress, depression, and psychological health as indicated by academic progress).
The review revealed a scarcity of studies with an "emancipatory" theoretical purpose.The only case of such research (in addition to having a causal explanatory and interpretive purpose) was the study by Scott-Young et al. (2020) which examined the variations in resilience and mental health among male and females through a gender lens.Through the Gendered theory of STEM Learning and Resilience theory, Scott-Young et al. (2020) identified that young female construction professionals have poorer mental health (compared with males) and a disadvantaged social position in industry and academia as a result of the predominantly masculine power structures and social position of masculine actors.The study highlighted the need for social change in both construction training and practice to improve females' mental health as a way   of attracting and retaining them in the industry.Studies such as this, with an emancipatory purpose, support the post-modern philosophical way of promoting mental health which emphasizes the empowerment of marginalized groups (e.g.females, young people from the Global South) through education and the provision of diverse and inclusive opportunities (Tones 1993, Nicholls 2012).Nonetheless, in terms of mental health conditions, the sole focus of this study on measuring and comparing levels of negative of mental health (depression, anxiety, stress, psychological distress) falls short of a positive framing of mental health.
Autonomous theorizing was evident in only one study, i.e., Frimpong et al. (2022).This was purely theoretical work undertaken as a systematic review of literature which used inductive reasoning to develop a conceptual framework of the connection that exists between poor mental health, psychosocial risks, psychological distress.The strength of the proposed framework for youth mental health in construction is that it provides a description of the association psychosocial hazards have with mental health, as an alternative to what already exists (e.g.Tijani et al. 2021), and can therefore provide a basis for further theorizing and empirical research.Nonetheless, an inherent weakness of the proposed framework (and its associated hypotheses) relative to the contemporary promotion of mental health is that it focuses solely on poor mental health as an outcome.

Aspects of theoretical thinking in the included studies
A high level of theoretical thinking was demonstrated in all the included studies.Typically, some authors combined phenomenon identification, phenomenon definition, and theory evaluation -with the theory evaluation aspect often being implicit.For example, in the case of Sunindijo and Kamardeen (2020), the three processes were undertaken to provide a reference frame at the front-end of the study.Other authors mixed phenomenon identification and phenomenon definition, and undertook theory evaluation separately.This was mainly carried out as a review of a theoretical framework in which one (e.g.Zaniboni et al. 2016 used only SOC theory) or, as in most cases (e.g.Maqsoom et al. 2020), multiple theories were reviewed, sometimes resulting in conceptual model development.Scott-Young et al. (2020), for example, specified their research aim and questions, after which they went ahead to provide a separate section for theory evaluation, which was undertaken as a review of the theoretical framework (Gendered Theory of STEM learning and Resilience theory) to provide a lens through which the study's aim would be viewed.A slightly different approach was taken by Zhang et al. (2023), who first outlined basic research objectives, undertook a separate theory evaluation process (a review of multiple models) to develop a conceptual model, and used it to streamline the research objectives and align them with the study variables.The practice of making explicit the theories that underpin a study, through the inclusion of theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks, is currently held as the higher standard (Maxwell 2013, Ravitch andRiggan 2017).
During theory evaluation, some authors also had a goal of testing a theory or conceptual framework/ model, with the aim of making changes to existing theories/models.For example, Turner and Lingard (2016) explicitly indicated the intention of theoryextension by seeking to advance the "work-life fit model" through a socio-ecological systems framing.Another example was Bowen et al. (2014), who sought to refine a trial model which was an integration of their previous frameworks on the strain effects and outcomes of personal, workplace, and organizational stressors.Their intention was to review their original hypothesis that substance use was a terminal outcome of job stress.For the majority of the papers (e.g.Leung et al. 2010, Sun et al. 2023), however, it was evident at the theory evaluation stage that the theory was just a guide to frame the study questions, identify variables, and examine the linkages among them and not to contribute to a review of the guiding theory or model.Closely related to the dominance of interpretive or causal explanatory theoretical purposes, is this predominant pattern of theoretical thinking, which is a common practice in studies that use theory (Godfrey et al. 2010).This could indicate that theory-use within the literature has largely been influenced by a positivist scientific approach, as evidenced by the large proportion of quantitative studies in the reviewed literature (Park et al. 2020).
Proposition development/testing was observed in the majority of the studies (n ¼ 10: 71.43%).Seven out of these specifically outlined propositions or hypotheses.Chen et al. (2017), for example, as an outcome of the theory evaluation process clearly outlined four propositions on how individual resilience and safety climate affect psychological stress, which were subsequently tested in their study.Although propositions were typically presented at the front-end in most of the studies, Frimpong et al. (2022) presented their fifteen testable propositions at the back-end of their study.This was likely because the propositions were the outcomes of the conceptual framework induced from their theoretical study.In the remaining three studies (e.g.Zhang et al. 2023), propositions were implicitly communicated at the introduction, literature review, or the study objectives sections (where this was separate).Although the mode of outlining propositions depends on the writing style of the researcher, a highly recommend practice is to be as explicit as possible as this can serve as a guide for study design and a subsequent evaluation of research validity (Farrugia et al. 2010).
With the exception of Frimpong et al. (2022), which theorised autonomously, the remaining studies used theory in some way to guide the process of data production and analysis.In most cases, although not directly stated, it was apparent that the guiding theory influenced authors' decisions on the types of data to collect, the terminologies used to label data, data collection tools, and the data analysis procedures.There were two exceptions, however.The first was Lingard and Turner (2015) who explicitly used Participatory Action Research (PAR) theory specifically to inform the methodological approach to their study.The second was Sun et al. (2023) whose data collection and analysis were influenced by a Job demand-resources and Bayesian network modelled algorithm.Although the practice of using theory to strictly guide methods is still under contention, it is strongly been recommended that studies that have a high focus on theory-use should also be fully committed to rigorous theory-guided methods if they are to produce "rich findings" (Collins and Stockton 2018).
All studies showed evidence that the presentation of their findings was shaped by their underlying or emergent theory.Basically, this was done, first, by presenting results in order of the theory-guided study objectives and/or propositions, and then describing or interpreting results in connection with -their implications for refining or extending -the underlying theory (Biesta et al. 2011, Rasmussen 2017).Where the theory emerged after data analysis (e.g.Frimpong et al. 2022), results were discussed in terms of their implications for further studies on the research objectives and the emergent theory.

Implications
While the studies reviewed do not constitute the larger portion of the body of literature under consideration, taken collectively, they indicate that researchers with an interest in young construction workers' mental health favour theory-use in research.Furthermore, there is an indication that researchers are somewhat open to adopting a post-modern perspective of mental health advancement.These claims are evidenced by the fact that theoretical thinking is well demonstrated across the studies included in this review, many of which have an overlapping theoretical purpose and utilize multiple theories or generate frameworks that lead to an understanding of mental health as something more than a biomedical construct.This notwithstanding, it is apparent that theory-use in current research is yet to result in the development of theories, models, or frameworks of mental health promotion among the youth who work in the industry.There is, therefore, a lack of comprehensive appreciation of positive mental health in terms of its structure and the process by which young construction workers achieve it.
We note that this outcome obviously has more to do with the theoretical purposes for which research is undertaken and the types of theories employed or generated, and less to do with our initial assumption of limited theory-use in mental health research.Lingard and Turner (2015), for example, demonstrate the issue of theoretical purpose in their work on health promotion among construction workers.They employed PAR theory and Social Ecology Health theory, both of which align with the collaborative, diverse, and inclusive purpose of post-modern mental health promotion, to comprehensively explain the impacts that health promotion measures and organizational and environmental factors have on workers' mental health promotion.They however did not develop concrete propositions on the connection between their study variables and positive mental health, perhaps because the theoretical purposes which they assumed, i.e., causal explanatory and interpretative, did not align with providing an alternative view of mental health as a positive concept.A slightly different case is Sun et al. (2023), who actually examined the connection between psychosocial hazards and both negative and good (or positive) mental health.In this case, good mental health was equated with having a minimal level of poor mental health symptoms, as evidenced by the tools they used to measure good mental health.This was perhaps because their theoretical purpose of interpretation focused more on psychosocial risk factors and the relationships among them, but not on providing alternative meanings of mental health.Zhang et al. (2023) is a classic example of the limitations imposed by the type of theory selected for a study.The study aimed to analyze the impact of coping strategies on mental health outcomes.Using a conceptual framework integrated from different theories to relate stressors, coping practices, and mental health conditions such as stress, anxiety, and depression, however, meant that it was not possible to theorize on how the dependent and mediating variables are associated with positive mental health.Based on our earlier discussion and the examples just discussed, we are of the view that for research to fully support mental health promotion, two areas need improvement.
First, researchers must, together with the dominant use of theory for causal explanatory and interpretive purposes, focus on producing more studies with an emancipatory and autonomous theorizing purpose.The last two theoretical purposes are more supportive of a change agenda because they compel researchers to ask questions such as 'what needs to change about how we view mental health' and in what other ways mental health can be seen, described, or thought of'?Since the extant literature is Global North-centric (Frimpong et al. 2022) and focuses mostly on male dominated samples, as reflected in the construction industry in most countries (Turner and Lingard 2020), the emancipatory framework is especially ideal for driving social change and giving a voice to marginalized groups such as young construction workers from the Global South and females, both of whom are known to have characteristics that affect their access and response to interventions for promoting mental health (Scott-Young et al. 2020, Frimpong et al. 2023).
Some scholars have argued that autonomous theorizing would result in researcher bias and constrain researchers from giving attention to relevant findings that are outside the domain of their theoretical perspective (Biesta et al. 2011).Biesta counters this argument by asserting that researchers who engage in autonomous theorizing are by no means suggesting it as an alternative to empirical work.In recommending more autonomous theorizing, we are mindful that theory generation is not a process that can be forced, and that not all research is conducted with the aim of generating theory, as is the case in most of the studies reviewed.A good way to boost the potential for research to lead to theory generation would, therefore, would be for researchers to embrace what Timmermans and Tavory (2012) call "abduction".This, perhaps, represents some form of creative quasiautonomous theorizing stance that moves beyond the inductive-deductive dyad toward a strategic generation of new theories by surprise (Collins and Stockton 2018).The ability to abduct theory stems from a researcher's inclination towards theory, which is often determined by their level of "affinity and familiarity" with different types of theory (Timmermans and Tavory 2012).
The second area that needs improvement has to do with ensuring that theories used to guide research, as well as those that emerge from research, lend support to the post-modern way of promoting mental health.Essentially, such theories must have: (1) constructs and variables that reflect as much as possible, the wider contextual situation of young construction workers; (2) favour a process which is diverse and includes the voice of the young people who work in the construction industry; and (3) highlight positive mental health the achievement of as the main outcome of any promotion efforts.From this perspective, we see one plausible option.Considering that the research field is young in terms of theory building, it would be prudent to anchor our studies in conceptual frameworks drawn from theories that originate from disciples that have been successful in promoting mental health in a post-modern way.This is akin to the recommended practice of researchers adopting the frameworks of prominent theorists as scaffolding for their own studies (Merriam 2009, Saldana 2015).In addition to directing the promotion of mental health, this practice can broaden construction researchers' theoretical field and make them theoretically sensitized observers who are strategically positioned to abduct theory, unanticipatedly and surprisingly from any kind of research (Timmermans and Tavory 2012).
In choosing a reference discipline, we suggest nursing, which regards mental health promotion as one of its core duties (Bittencourt et al. 2018), and has itself borrowed theories from other fields like sociology, medicine, psychology, anthropology, natural science, and education to build middle-range theories that focus on "providing structure, direction, and rationale" for specific issues encountered in nursing research and practice (Im 2018).These types of theories are important in the sense that they produce fundamental "disciplinary knowledge" and facilitate a strong connection between theory and practice (Meleis 2018).In fact, Bittencourt et al. (2018) have recently highlighted four key nursing theories that align with the postmodern promotion of mental health.These include the Interpersonal Relations Theory (Peplau 1990), (ii) Adaptation Model (Roy and Andrews 2001), (iii) Transitions Theory (Meleis et al 2000, Meleis 2010), and (iv) the Health Promotion Model (Pender et al. 2011).That these theories are versatile lies in their incorporation of key concepts and terminology for describing the phenomena associated with mental health promotion as well as their ability to provide a basis for assessing mental healthcare and outcomes.They can also be merged with other theories, have value for guiding communication about mental health, and are useful for developing interventions and relevant policy changes that can adequately advance the promotion of mental health (Meleis 2018).

Conclusion and recommendations
We sought to understand why research on young construction workers focuses predominantly on negative aspects of mental health but not more on positive mental health, contrary to the recommended postmodern logic of promoting mental health.After reviewing past literature for all theories, conceptual frameworks, and conceptual models used during the research process, or that emerged as an outcome of the research, we conclude that the lack of attention to positive mental health stems not from the lack of high-quality theorizing, but from researchers' predominant assumption of causal explanatory and interpretive theoretical purposes, and use of theories that do not offer a positive conceptualization of mental health.Thus, what constitutes positive mental health, its determinants, and its attainment by the young people who work in construction occupations still remains unclear.To overcome this challenge, researchers should embrace the ambition of conducting research with the goal of emancipation and autonomous theorizing.Furthermore, researchers are encouraged to borrow theories from disciplines such as nursing, which are well suited for driving research on mental health promotion.Ultimately, this will open the way for construction researchers to abduct theories and/or develop comprehensive conceptual frameworks that focus on mental health promotion by having constructs which indicate the overall circumstances in which young construction workers find themselves, incorporate the views of young construction workers and other relevant stakeholders, and most importantly, have the attainment of positive mental health as a goal.By possessing such features, these frameworks can effectively guide empirical research on positive mental health with respect to generating suitable research questions, explaining underlying reasons for the correlations between variables, and developing policy and interventions that promote young construction workers' positive mental health.
Only research publications in English were considered in this review and therefore it is possible that useful perspectives from publications in other languages could have been omitted.Furthermore, the review was limited to literature on only a section of the construction workforce -young construction workers -and thus our findings and conclusions might not be applicable to the larger body of literature on construction mental health despite it also focusing predominantly on negative mental health.Moreover, we considered only theory-use, which as just one of the underlying influences of the research process.Despite these limitations, this research represents one of the earliest attempts to evaluate theoryuse in construction mental health research.We expose issues and present recommendations which when given attention, can benefit construction researchers at all stages of their career to contribute to ongoing research aimed at promoting mental health in the construction industry.Furthermore, by encouraging the utilization of theoretical perspectives from other disciplinary fields, we support a multidisciplinary approach to extending the scholarly discourse on mental health research in the construction management literature.Future studies may extend our findings by examining theory-use in the wider literature on construction workers.Considering that methodology also is a vital aspect of the research endeavour, the methodological rigour of published research could be reviewed, perhaps giving attention to the theorymethod fit of the extant literature for mental health promotion.
social psychology and related fields.Ten out of these were substantive theories (e.g.Social Health Ecology theory, Coping theory, and Selective Optimisation and Compensation [SOC] theory) while the remaining ten were conceptual frameworks or models (e.g.Stressorsstress-injury model, Job demand-resources model, and Integrated Model of Occupational Stress).Four of the conceptual models were originally developed by the authors who employed them (e.g.Psychosocial riskpsychological distress-poor mental health model; Stressors-stress-injury model), while the remaining six (e.g.Work ability model) were drawn from frameworks previously created by other researchers who addressed issues similar to those investigated by the authors who used them.Eight (57.14%) studies utilized single theories/frameworks to address their research objectives, while the remaining six (42.86%) drew on multiple theories/frameworks.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Search process used for the scoping review.
in alphabetical order according to lead author names.Explanation of symbols: x ¼ "yes"; -¼ "no".

Table 1 .
Analytical matrix of theory-use in research.

Table 2 .
Description of articles included in the review.
Studies are arranged by lead author names in alphabetical order.Percentages represent the minimum proportions of young people in a sample.PEO: Population-Exposure-Outcomes; PICo: Population-Phenomena of Interest-Context; PRFs: Psychosocial Risk Factors; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Qual: qualitative; Quant: quantitative.

Table 3 .
Details of theory-use in youth mental health research in the construction industry.