Quick answer: Nutrition Professionals are less stress-exposed than most Australian occupations — ranked #281 of 317 by workplace mental health hazard exposure, with a composite stress score of 40/100 against a national average of 47.4.
Nutrition Professionals stress profile vs the national average
Each occupation is scored across six categories of workplace mental health hazard, built from 22 stress factors identified in SafeWork Australia's occupational hazards data. Higher scores mean greater exposure.
- Emotional demands36.9 vs 37.9 avg
- Responsibility burden49 vs 60 avg
- Pace and demands48 vs 56 avg
- Lack of control15.6 vs 24.5 avg
- Precision and monotony56.2 vs 67.7 avg
- Physical environment34.4 vs 38.2 avg
Scores range 0–100; higher = more stress-inducing. Source: SafeWork Australia Beta Occupational Hazards Dataset.
What drives the score for nutrition professionals
The occupation scores below the national average for precision and monotony (56.2 vs 67.7), responsibility burden (49 vs 60) and lack of control (15.6 vs 24.5), which moderates the overall ranking.
See how this compares across all 317 Australian occupations, ranked by stress score.
The biggest stress factors for nutrition professionals
- 1Precision and monotony
Importance of Being Exact or Accurate
75/100
All-occupation average: 78.6
- 2Pace and demands
Time Pressure
70.8/100
All-occupation average: 71.6
- 3Physical environment
Exposed to Disease or Infections
65/100
All-occupation average: 20.2
- 4Physical environment
Physical Proximity
61.2/100
All-occupation average: 61.1
- 5Pace and demands
Frequency of Decision Making
57.8/100
All-occupation average: 70.7
All 22 stress factors for nutrition professionals
The complete scorecard: every stress factor measured for this occupation, grouped into the six categories, with the all-occupation average alongside.
Emotional demands
36.9 vs 37.9 avg- Deal With Physically Aggressive People18.2 vs 14
- Deal With Unpleasant or Angry People53.2 vs 50.4
- Frequency of Conflict Situations39.2 vs 49.3
Responsibility burden
49 vs 60 avg- Responsibility for Outcomes and Results48.2 vs 58.5
- Responsible for Others' Health and Safety57.5 vs 57.3
- Impact of Decisions on Co-workers or Company Results50.8 vs 70.4
- Consequence of Error33.5 vs 49
- Coordinate or Lead Others55 vs 64.9
Pace and demands
48 vs 56 avg- Time Pressure70.8 vs 71.6
- Duration of Typical Work Week53.5 vs 62.1
- Pace Determined by Speed of Equipment2.5 vs 23.1
- Frequency of Decision Making57.8 vs 70.7
- Level of Competition55.8 vs 52.4
Lack of control
15.6 vs 24.5 avg- Lack of Autonomy to Make Decisions11.2 vs 23.6
- Amount of Highly Structured Work20 vs 25.3
Precision and monotony
56.2 vs 67.7 avg- Importance of Repeating Same Tasks37.5 vs 56.9
- Importance of Being Exact or Accurate75 vs 78.6
Physical environment
34.4 vs 38.2 avg- Sounds and Noise Levels Are Distracting or Uncomfortable40.5 vs 52.3
- Extremely Bright or Inadequate Lighting2.5 vs 24.9
- Very Hot or Cold Temperatures2.5 vs 32.4
- Exposed to Disease or Infections65 vs 20.2
- Physical Proximity61.2 vs 61.1
Methodology
Clearhead scored 317 occupations in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) using SafeWork Australia's Beta Occupational Hazards Dataset. We kept only the 22 hazard variables relating to mental health — such as conflict exposure, decision-making pressure, and time pressure — and deliberately excluded physical safety risks like working at height.
The 22 variables are grouped into six categories: emotional demands, responsibility burden, pace and demands, lack of control, precision and monotony, and physical environment. An occupation's composite score is the equally weighted average of its six category scores. All scores run 0–100, where higher means more stress-inducing.
Two control-related variables are reported by SafeWork with inverted polarity (“freedom to make decisions” and “structured versus unstructured work”). We reverse these and present them as lack of autonomy to make decisions and amount of highly structured work, so that a higher score consistently indicates greater stress exposure.
Hazard exposure describes the average conditions of an occupation, not any individual's experience — everyone has a different tolerance for these challenges, and conditions vary between workplaces.
Frequently asked questions
Nutrition Professionals: how stressful is the job?
Nutrition Professionals rank #281 out of 317 Australian occupations for workplace mental health hazards, with a composite stress score of 40/100 against a national average of 47.4. That makes the occupation more stress-exposed than 11.4% of Australian jobs.
What are the biggest mental health stress factors for nutrition professionals?
The highest-scoring hazards are importance of being exact or accurate (75/100), time pressure (70.8/100) and exposed to disease or infections (65/100).
Which stress factors are lower for nutrition professionals?
Nutrition Professionals score below the national average for emotional demands (36.9 vs 37.9 average) and responsibility burden (49 vs 60 average) and pace and demands (48 vs 56 average) and lack of control (15.6 vs 24.5 average) and precision and monotony (56.2 vs 67.7 average) and physical environment (34.4 vs 38.2 average), which partially offsets the higher-scoring hazards.
Where does this data come from?
Scores are derived from SafeWork Australia's Beta Occupational Hazards Dataset. Clearhead filtered the dataset to the 22 mental-health-related hazard variables — excluding physical safety risks — and scored 317 ANZSCO occupations across six categories: emotional demands, responsibility burden, pace and demands, lack of control, precision and monotony, and physical environment.
Beyond the average
This is the average hazard exposure for nutrition professionals. Your workforce isn't average.
Clearhead's Psychosocial Risk Pulse measures the actual psychosocial risk in your organisation, quarterly — across 18 ISO 45003-aligned work factors.