Mapping the evidence on the assessment of fitness to work at heights: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Falls from heights are a leading cause of workplace injuries and fatalities. Ensuring worker fitness is crucial, yet many countries lack formal guidelines for fitness for work (FFW) assessments, posing safety and legal risks. This scoping review sought to identify and map the existing evidence on the assessment of fitness to work at heights. DESIGN: Scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in March 2024 across ProQuest Central, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Grey literature was sourced from the websites of organisations including the International Labour Organisation, Safe Work Australia, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, Health and Safety Executive (UK), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (USA), WHO, Centre for Construction Research and Training (USA), Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (UK), South African Society of Occupational Medicine, South African Society of Occupational Health Nursing and Institute for Work at Height (South Africa), in addition to general Google searches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Our inclusion criteria encompassed both peer-reviewed and grey literature that addressed either 'fitness for work at heights', 'fitness for work in high-risk settings requiring work at heights' or human risk factors associated with working at heights. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A data extraction framework and guidance sheet were developed, piloted and refined through team discussions. An iterative review process was followed, with one author extracting and coding data while two authors conducted quality checks. Deductive qualitative content analysis was applied to the extracted data. RESULTS: 68 articles met the inclusion criteria, but only 7 directly addressed fitness to work at heights, with the rest focusing on fitness to work in high-risk settings requiring work at heights or human risk factors associated with work at heights. This highlights a lack of peer-reviewed research specific to the topic. Key challenges included FFW assessments failing to reflect job demands, inconsistent application of FFW evaluations, lack of standardisation and inadequate stakeholder collaboration. Legal tensions between employer safety obligations and worker rights were also noted. Critical human risk factors-such as physical and mental limitations, adverse states, human error and rule violations-significantly affected worker safety, though evidence of their specific impact in this context remained limited. Findings on the economic implications of FFW assessments were also inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Assessing FFW at heights is vital for worker safety, yet key challenges persist. This review highlights gaps in evidence on human risk factors and assessment methods. Findings emphasise the need for practice-based research, standardised fitness criteria and interdisciplinary protocols for preplacement assessment and ongoing monitoring.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».