ArticlePloS one2024
Developing a risk framework for assembly construction based on stakeholder theory and structural equation modelling.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational injuries in the construction industry have plagued many countries, and many cases have shown that accidents often occur because of a combination of project participants. Assembled construction (AC) projects have received extensive attention from Chinese scholars as a future trend, but few studies have explored the interrelationships and potential risks of various stakeholders in depth. This study fills this research gap by proposing a multi-stakeholder AC risk framework. The study surveyed 396 stakeholders, then analyzed the collected data and created a risk framework based on Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and the CRITIC weighting method. The results revealed that factors like "regular supervision is a formality," "blindly approving the wrong safety measures," and "failure to organize effective safety education and training." are vital risks in AC of China. Finally, the study validates the risk factors and the framework with 180 real-life cases, which shows that the proposed framework is theoretically grounded and realistic. The study also suggests multi-level strategies such as introducing AI-based automated risk monitoring, improving the adaptability of normative provisions to technological advances, and advancing the culture of project communities of interest to ensure AC's safe practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.