After knowing about several studies that often linked office fatigue to fluorescent lighting, I am wondering if office employees who worked in offices lit by low CRI halophosphate fluorescent lamps experienced more frequent and severe fatigue symptoms compared to office employees who worked in offices lit by higher CRI triphosphor fluorescent lamps.

I would more guess the fluorescents provide very good lighting so are able to support mental activity so much you tire yourself way more without actually feeling it, so you then suffer from (mental) exhaustion when doing that for too long time.
And I don't think there would be any difference related to any lighting technology, just the bright illumination levels and higher CCT in general. Fluorescents were just the first technology providing such lighting...

I would indeed consider the possibility of a closer relation between well-being and quality of light. The remarks about "pale" fluorescent lighting are well known, and they apparently refer to poor colour rendering (with 530 being the worst of all, really making everything look pale) and/or a mixture of light colours.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=color+rendering+index+fatigue+office+workers&btnG=

I can highly recommend using Google Scholar to find research papers. Google Scholar's really good, at least until they find a way to monetize it and plaster advertisements over everything.

I haven't read any of the papers yet.

If you find a paper that isn't publically accessible, you can use https://sci-hub.se/ to access it. Either search for the title, or copy the DOI: link.
Finally, if Sci-Hub can't access it, often the writers (if it's a somewhat recent paper) are happy to send you a copy and answer questions you might have, as long as you approach it with an open, scientific mindset. For instance, i notice the first result is from Iran, and if they did the research over there, they may very well have drawn conclusions that aren't valid in places with dark, cold winters. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people who live more northern and in colder climates typically prefer warmer lighting. I have never seen cool white CFLs in my life, but they are or were extremely common in east asia.
The fact that 2700k is the de facto standard where i live, does not automatically mean it is the single best light color temperature.

Never pay 30 bucks to Elsevier or whatever for a single paper. The writers do NOT get a share of that money.

OK, this is not a scientific post, but from personal experience. I find poor choices of fixtures to be equally if not more important in fatigue than the quality of the light. Sure, there are some that are just awful, but I find I can get at least a bit used to it. For poor choice of fixtures, it is more difficult to ignore. I find troffer type of fixtures to be the worst because you have some very bright patches of light with dark ceiling between. That makes it hard on the eyes. Suspended uplight/downlight fixtures are a better choice since there is less contrast with the ceiling. Troffers with a dark ceiling between can be somewhat remedied by having table lamps, which make a soft, not too bright light source at eye level. For some reason, my brain makes it more even...

Interesting side note : my orthodontist's office is a long narrow room, with a row of dentist chairs (about 10). The lighting is your typical 4-lamp 2x4 troffer, but they are arranged in a checkerboard fashion. Also, the floor is white. I find it makes an acceptable compromise to the arguments I have stated in the paragraph above. On the other hand, this arrangement is not very common.

It absolutely is. However, i have also heard suggestions that a certain level of contrast (as opposed to the most perfect, uniform lighting) is not a bad thing because humans evolved in a world where completely uniform lighting simply did not exist until about 75 years ago. This is more a subconcious mental aspect than an eye strain aspect. Citation very much needed! Worth looking into.
I'm dreading the day my office gets fitted with 4000k "daylight" panels and already eyeing desk lamps and other fixtures that i can use to create a nice atmosphere at the office, as opposed to uniform refrigerator lighting. They do their job - uniform lighting - but they also make the offices where they're already fitted, feel like a worse place to be.

You can find a plethora of information on lamptech.co.uk - there are lots of papers there - just read the information with the knowledge that A. many of those papers and reports are very old and may or may not have been surpassed by new information, and B. although the old manufacturers genuinely had amazing R&D laboratories in place, they're still commercial businesses trying to sell as many new lamps and fixtures as possible - and papers with the conclusion 'The existing technology is just as good as our new innovative product' are unlikely to have been published.

I sometimes find the lamptech website to contain valuable information on electric lighting history and sometimes have used that site to cite specific information.

I suspect lighting uniformity, lighting levels, contrast, glare and many other factors that are not lighting-related would have had a greater effect on office work-related fatigue than lamp CRI. I worked in offices for most of my life, so much time was spent under typical office fluorescent lighting.

When I was growing up, the halophosphate F40T12/CW (and occasionally /WW) lamp was in offices and schools. Only when there was a color-intensive task did CRI make a difference. In most black & white paper-related tasks, this wouldn't make a difference. If the lighting was such that the black & white contrast was reduced, that could be an issue. If computers were used, they were often at the time monochrome (usually green on black) CRTs so glare on the screen could be an issue, but perhaps less so than with color monitors where the print was black on a white background. I remember people putting glare guards on their color CRTs in some spaces. Later flat screen LCD/LED monitors often had more of a matte coating and didn't reflect as badly.

Some offices and schools back in the day even had the Lite White 34W lamps which had an even lower color rendering than cool white. I never could tell back then that there was a difference.

I do remember the switch from F40T12 magnetic to F32T8/triphosphor electronic in offices. This eliminated the flicker of magnetic ballasts (which never bothered me, but bothered some people) but many people still hated them. I hated the F32s more because they had higher surface brightness (more glary) and they often chose a 3500K color temperature for some reason in offices rather than SP41s. I know in one office, people complained about the brightness after a group relamp so the "compensation" was for the maintenance man to remove the inner two lamps from each fixture. It looked awful. A common retrofit elsewhere was to replace four lamps with two and add a specular reflector to the troffer. This only looked OK if the sockets were also moved closer to the center of the troffer.

I think about those who worked in factories that had HPS high bays, or even mercury vapor high bays. With very low CRI and very tinted light, one's eyes do adapt to it (and then other lighting or daylight looks strange). Inadequate light, noticeable flicker or glare though, definitely leads to eyestrain and headaches.

In my "home office" the lighting is probably not ideal, but I use 5000K 90CRI F40s on a magnetic ballast during the daytime, with a 13w 5000K PL desk lamp if I need supplemental lighting. I have an accent light and a desk light with 2700K triphosphor CFLs for after dark/later night computing (I turn off the overheads), with some low-wattage linear fluorescent 5000K in back of the monitor and under the monitor shelf (lighting the keyboard) for indirect lighting. I also have a torchiere with a SBMV (3200K or so) if I need the room brighter. No light shines directly in my eyes anywhere and no LEDs, LOL. I used CRTs up until about 10 years ago then went to CCFL-backlit flat screens.

spent 10 years working in a garage with F40T12 one one side and  VHO's on the other side
original side was "modernized" in the 60s and the expansion in the 70's / 80s
the old shop with F40's were spaced all over the area including on the walls to shine down the sides of vans in the shop
the new side with the VHO fixtures was brighter but with far less number of lamps and less equal light coverage making for a LOT of "dark and bright" spots
I prefered the F40 side of the garage to work in