ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2026
Development of an interdisciplinary consensus statement for assessing fitness for work at heights in the South African construction industry: a virtual Modified Nominal Group Technique study.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFalls from heights are a leading cause of occupational injury and death globally, with construction workers disproportionately affected. In South Africa, employers must ensure that workers performing fall-risk tasks are certified as fit to work at heights, yet regulations provide little guidance on how such assessments should be conducted. Within a broader two-phase research project undertaken by the authors, Phase 1 comprised a scoping review that identified limited peer-reviewed evidence and a lack of standardised frameworks for assessing fitness for work at heights, followed by a qualitative study that found inconsistent, predominantly medicalised assessment practices that inadequately reflect job-specific risks and demands. In response, a draft interdisciplinary consensus statement was developed. This study reports Phase 2, a structured expert consensus process undertaken to systematically revise and consolidate the draft consensus statement.
methodsA virtual Modified Nominal Group Technique was conducted with six experts from occupational medicine, occupational health nursing, occupational therapy, and construction health and safety. Participants reviewed the draft consensus statement prior to a facilitated online discussion, followed by an anonymous post-session rating survey. Quantitative ratings were analysed using medians and interquartile ranges against predefined consensus criteria, while qualitative data from transcripts, field notes, and participant annotations were analysed using directed qualitative content analysis.
resultsConsensus was achieved on 20 of 27 items, indicating strong support for the draft statement's overall structure and intent. Items not reaching consensus mainly concerned definitional clarity, occupational risk-exposure profiling, and follow-up procedures. Revisions focused on clarifying terminology; strengthening guidance on occupational risk exposure and worker-job specification; recognising behavioural and psychosocial factors alongside physical, cognitive, and environmental considerations; and introducing the concept of a competent, registered and authorised person.
conclusionsThis study presents an interdisciplinary consensus statement, developed through expert consensus, providing a principles- and process-based framework for assessing fitness for work at heights. It promotes consistent, transparent, job-specific, risk-based fitness assessments beyond generic medical certification. Future efforts should focus on translating this framework into practical tools and evaluating its feasibility across various construction settings.
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.