FIFO Worker Mental Health Statistics: The Australian Data

FIFO work underpins much of Australia's resources sector, and for the tens of thousands of people who do it the trade-offs are well understood: strong pay, long absences, and a life split between two places. What's less widely understood is how consistently the research points in one direction.

Across more than a decade of Australian studies — some sampling over 3,000 workers — FIFO workers report materially worse mental health than the general population, and worse than demographically matched workers in other roles. That last point matters, because the gap doesn't disappear when you control for age, gender and occupation.

This roundup collects the Australian statistics on FIFO worker mental health, grouped by theme, with every figure referenced and every overseas source labelled.

How common is psychological distress among FIFO workers?

Around one in three FIFO workers reports high or very high psychological distress, roughly triple the general population rate.

• 32.6% of FIFO workers reported high or very high psychological distress in 2018, against 11.7% of the Australian norm sample [1]
• Only 37.1% of FIFO workers reported low psychological distress, compared with 68% of the general population [1]
• 28% of remote mining and construction workers scored high or very high on the K10, against 10.8% nationally [2]
• 22% of remote mining and construction workers rated their own mental health as poor or fair, against 14.8% nationally [2]
• FIFO workers scored significantly worse than the Australian population on the DASS-21 (11.92 against 8.30) [3]
• 40.9% of FIFO workers reported high or very high distress during COVID-19, up from 32.6% in 2018 [1]
• Just 27.4% reported low distress during COVID-19, down from 37.1% [1]

Key takeaway

FIFO work predicted higher psychological distress and burnout even after controlling for age, gender, education and professional role [1]. The elevated rates are not simply a function of who the industry employs.

What drives poor mental health on site?

Missing home dominates the stressor rankings, but lack of control at work explains more of the variance in mental health outcomes.

• The five most reported stressors were missing special events (86.5%), relationship problems with partners (68.0%), financial stress (62.3%), shift rosters (62.0%) and social isolation (60.2%) [2]
• Four issues explained roughly a third of the variance in workers' mental health: lack of control at work (28.3% of the model), lack of sleep (24.9%), missing home (20.0%) and physical health (10.6%) [3]
• The three highest-rated impacts on mental health were missing family and friends, lack of sleep, and feeling underpaid [3]
• Sense of belonging on site had the strongest single correlation with poor mental health (r=0.54), ahead of loneliness (r=0.52) [3]
• Workers very or extremely stressed by their immediate supervisor were four times as likely to report high distress [2]
• Relationship stress raised the odds of high distress eightfold; financial stress sixfold [2]
• Workers aged 25 to 34 were three times as likely to report high distress as those aged 55 and over [2]

How much do rosters and work design matter?

Roster structure was the single work characteristic most strongly associated with distress, and it is among the most modifiable.

• Workers on 2 weeks on/1 week off had roughly twice the risk of moderate distress as those on 4 weeks on/1 week off [2]
• Workers on 2 weeks on/1 week off reported poorer mental health than those on 8 days on/6 days off [3]
• Workers on shifts longer than 12 hours reported poorer mental health than those on 12-hour shifts [3]
• Even-time and shorter rosters, and day shifts only, were linked to the best mental health outcomes [4]
• Having a permanent room on site was linked to better mental health than other accommodation arrangements [4]
• Job security, manageable workloads and autonomy over how work is carried out each protect worker mental health [4]

What role does stigma play?

Stigma is the strongest predictor of psychological distress in the FIFO literature, ahead of every roster, workload and relationship factor measured.

• Workers stressed by mental health stigma were 20 times more likely to report high or very high distress; those extremely stressed by it, 24 times [2]
• 41% of workers were worried about the stigma attached to mental health problems [2]
• 38.5% reported stress caused by help being unavailable when needed [2]
• Fear of losing work was the main barrier to disclosing suicidal thoughts, alongside distrust of leadership and fear of a hostile reaction [5]
• Workers doubted EAPs could be used confidentially, citing escalation processes that can change fitness-for-work status [5]
• 70% of surveyed FIFO workers reported lived or living experience of suicide [5]
• FIFO workers are less likely than other workers to report or seek help for mental health concerns [6]
• Suicide prevalence among male mining workers is estimated at 25 per 100,000 [7]

Key takeaway

Stigma outranks every other measured factor. A worker who believes disclosure will cost them their job will not use the support an organisation has already paid for.

How are partners and families affected?

Partners carry a comparable mental health burden, and it is largely invisible to employers.

• 50.4% of FIFO partners were at risk of psychological distress, despite 85.1% reporting good physical health [8]
• Partners slept 6.4 hours a night while the worker was on shift, against 7.3 hours off shift [8]
• Partners who smoke smoked more while the worker was away (13.1 against 11.6 cigarettes a day) [8]
• 64% of FIFO partners said they did not like their partner working FIFO, while 62% of workers said they liked the job [9]
• Behaviour problems increase among children, particularly boys, when the FIFO parent is away for longer periods, though most FIFO families function well and report cohesive relationships [10]

How do workers cope?

Alcohol and other drug use function as coping strategies, and autonomy appears to moderate them.

• FIFO workers were significantly more likely than other workers to smoke, drink at risky levels, and be overweight or obese [6]
• FIFO workers drink more alcohol on average, and more drink at risky levels, than both norm data and a matched benchmark group [4]
• Workers with more autonomy during time off at camp reported lower alcohol consumption [4]

What is the business case for acting?

• Every $1 invested in workplace mental health returns an estimated $2.30, rising to $5.70 in the resources sector [11]
• Employers are encouraged to develop a culture prioritising mental health, assess psychosocial risks, train line managers, address stigma, promote support services, and put procedures in place for mental health emergencies [4]

The bottom line

The prevalence findings are consistent across every major Australian dataset from 2018 onward, and the gap persists after controlling for demographics. What the research also shows is that the strongest predictors are modifiable: roster structure, supervisor relationships, autonomy at work, sleep conditions, and whether workers believe help-seeking is safe.

The gap is not awareness. It is trust. An EAP that workers believe is monitored will not be used, whatever it costs to provide.

FAQs

How many FIFO workers experience mental health problems?

Around one in three. The largest Australian study found 32.6% of FIFO workers reported high or very high psychological distress, against 11.7% of the Australian norm sample. A separate study of 1,124 remote mining and construction workers found 28%, against 10.8% nationally.

Is FIFO work itself the cause, or is it the type of person who does FIFO work?

Both, but not only the demographics. FIFO workers are predominantly younger men, a group already at higher risk. When researchers controlled for age, gender, education and professional role, FIFO work still independently predicted higher psychological distress and burnout.

Which rosters are worst for mental health?

Compressed rosters. Workers on 2 weeks on/1 week off had roughly twice the risk of moderate distress as those on 4 weeks on/1 week off, and reported poorer mental health than those on 8 days on/6 days off. Even-time and shorter rosters, with day shifts only, were associated with the best outcomes.

Why don't FIFO workers use the support available?

Because they doubt it is confidential and fear it will cost them work. Workers stressed by mental health stigma were up to 24 times more likely to report high distress, and 41% were worried about stigma. Research into suicide disclosure found workers were concerned that leaders escalate mental health concerns in ways that change their fitness-for-work status.

Does FIFO work affect partners and families?

Yes. Just over half of FIFO partners surveyed were at risk of psychological distress, and partners slept nearly an hour less per night while the worker was on shift. Research on children is more mixed: most FIFO families function well, though behaviour problems increase when the parent is away for longer periods.

Is FIFO work a psychosocial hazard?

FIFO work is not a hazard in itself, but several of its features are recognised psychosocial hazards under a PCBU's duty: low job control, remote or isolated work, long or compressed hours, poor supervisor support, and exposure to stigma that deters help-seeking. Employers are expected to assess and control these risks.

What can employers actually change?

The highest-impact levers are the modifiable ones the research identifies: roster structure and shift length, autonomy over how work is done, supervisor capability and relationships, sleep conditions and accommodation, reliable communication with home, and visible action on stigma so that support is trusted enough to be used.

References

1. Gilbert, J.M., Fruhen, L.S., Burton, C.T. & Parker, S.K., The mental health of fly-in fly-out workers before and during COVID-19: a comparison study, Australian Journal of Psychology, 75(1), 2023.
2. Bowers, J., Lo, J., Miller, P., Mawren, D. & Jones, B., Psychological distress in remote mining and construction workers in Australia, Medical Journal of Australia, 208(9), 2018.
3. Turner, R. & Rubin, M., Issues affecting mental health at a fly-in-fly-out mine site: a subjective impact ratings approach, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(11), 2022.
4. Parker, S., Fruhen, L., Burton, C. et al., Impact of FIFO Work Arrangements on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of FIFO Workers, Centre for Transformative Work Design, Curtin University, for the Mental Health Commission of Western Australia, 2018.
5. Jackson, J. & Ross, V., Understanding Suicide Stigma in Fly-In/Fly-Out Workers: A Thematic Analysis of Attitudes Towards Suicide, Help-Seeking and Help-Offering, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(3), 2025.
6. Joyce, S.J., Tomlin, S.M., Somerford, P.J. & Weeramanthri, T.S., Health behaviours and outcomes associated with fly-in fly-out and shift workers in Western Australia, Internal Medicine Journal, 43(4), 2013.
7. King, T., Maheen, H., Taouk, Y. & LaMontagne, A.D., Suicide in the Australian Mining Industry: Assessment of Rates among Male Workers Using 19 Years of Coronial Data, Safety and Health at Work, 14, 2023.
8. Asare, B.Y., Kwasnicka, D., Robinson, S. & Powell, D., Health and related behaviours of partners of fly-in fly-out workers in Australia: a cross-sectional study, Community, Work & Family, 2022.
9. Gardner, B., Alfrey, K-L., Vandelanotte, C. & Rebar, A.L., Mental health and well-being concerns of fly-in fly-out workers and their partners in Australia: a qualitative study, BMJ Open, 8(3), 2018.
10. Meredith, V., Rush, P. & Robinson, E., Fly-in fly-out workforce practices in Australia: the effects on children and family relationships, CFCA Paper No. 19, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014.
11. PwC, Creating a Mentally Healthy Workplace: Return on Investment Analysis, 2014.

‍

‍