ArticleBMC public health2025
Risk perception, barriers and working safely at height in construction: a psychological network approach.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundIn the construction industry workers frequently work at height. To explore and describe construction workers’ barriers and motives to work safely at height, we studied their perspectives on the safety risks, perceived barriers and intention to use safety measures regarding working at height. Specifically, we studied perspectives on the use of edge protection and a safety harness.
methodWe administered semi-structured interviews (n = 11) and a pen and paper survey (n = 227) on construction and training sites. Only operational workers were eligible to participate in the study. In this study, the behaviour of using specific safety measures was approached as being emergent from a complex network of interacting psychological variables. To analyse the structure of these ‘behavioural decision networks’ we applied a psychological network approach.
resultsConstruction workers did not necessarily agree they were at risk from falling from height and were even less concerned about that. Network analysis suggest that cognitive evaluation (i.e. probability) had a more central position in the behavioural decision networks than affective appraisal (i.e. worry). The intention to use safety measures had the most central position in the network, while the general intention to work safely was the least central. Perceived control over encountering unsafe situations was the second lowest. Age and work experience hardly played a role in the networks. Descriptive comparisons of the networks suggest different possible points for intervention to improve safe working at height.
conclusionsWe identified several factors that may be promising intervention points. For two safety measures, different intervention points will likely be more promising in fostering safer working at height. Interventions and communication efforts that focus on fostering specific behavioural intentions regarding the use of safety measures are likely to be far more effective in improving safe behaviour than relying on general slogans of working safely. Other possible leverage points include sharing personal stories from colleagues who have sustained (serious) injuries due to falls from height, improving hazard identification, and removing barriers to the use of safety measures. Future studies should elaborate on and further substantiate the explorative findings in this paper.
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.