ArticleHeliyon2024
A qualitative exploration and a Fuzzy Delphi validation of high-risk scaffolding tasks and fatigue-related safety behavioural deviation among scaffolders.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk of very serious injuries in Swedish scaffolders - What is an acceptable risk?Injury epidemiology · 2026Article
- From blur to blueprint: a fuzzy delphi methodology for evaluating early-stage emerging technologies-the case of end-of-life automotive traction battery disassembly.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Designing a flipped AI-chatbot learning module to support students' environmental literacy development: A Fuzzy Delphi Method.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most construction mishaps were caused by scaffolding incidents despite implementing various safety measures, and the association with human factors like fatigue has been widely reported. This study aims to identify all high-risk task sequences involved during the erection of the most commonly used scaffold; the deviation from the standard protocol led to a substandard fatigue state, followed by content validation using the Fuzzy Delphi Method. Methods: Qualitative exploration was conducted via focal group discussions (FGDs) involving 30 certified experts. The findings generated from FGDs were further validated by utilising the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) by consulting 19 experts with extensive practical experience and leadership roles in scaffolding safety. Results: The FGDs identified a total of 7 constructs and 50 items for task sequences involved in the tubular scaffold erection, namely construct Instruction (3 items), Preparation (3 items), Foundation (10 items), First Lift (8 items), Working Platform (7 items), Guardrails (5 items) and Second Lift (14 items). In the FDM validation process, the experts' consensus for each construct was fulfilled with a threshold value (d) ≤ 0.2; thus, all constructs were accepted. Experts' consensus for all items achieved an expert agreement of 75 % and above. Items ranking was conducted using average fuzzy numbers. The highest average fuzzy number documented was 0.8, while the lowest was 0.588. None of the items with the lowest ranking was discarded as all items perfectly fulfilled the second prerequisite and obtained excellent experts' agreement. Conclusions: The tool generated will help guide the development of a protocol for scaffolding safety management.
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.