1 / 27

Prevention of Agricultural Injuries: An Evaluation of an Education-based Intervention

Prevention of Agricultural Injuries: An Evaluation of an Education-based Intervention. LM Hagel, W Pickett, P Pahwa, L Day, RJ Brison, B Marlenga, T Crowe, P Snodgrass, K Ulmer, JA Dosman. Objective.

cleary
Download Presentation

Prevention of Agricultural Injuries: An Evaluation of an Education-based Intervention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prevention of Agricultural Injuries: An Evaluation of an Education-based Intervention LM Hagel, W Pickett, P Pahwa, L Day, RJ Brison, B Marlenga, T Crowe, P Snodgrass, K Ulmer, JA Dosman

  2. Objective • To evaluate the effectiveness of an agricultural health and safety program in reducing risks for injury.

  3. Intervention Agricultural Health and Safety Network Features of the program • community-based • co-directed by members of the population at risk • well funded • sustained program over 19 years

  4. Methods

  5. Design: Cross-sectional survey

  6. Setting Southern Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities Saskatchewan, Canada

  7. Sampling Multi stage • Rural Municipal (RM) level • Farm level • Individual level

  8. Data Collection Instrument • standardized mail questionnaire • key informant on each farm • January to April, 2007

  9. Data Collection Impact and Outcome Measures • safety practices, farm hazards • farm level • injury history • individual level

  10. Data Collection Exposure Measure • years of membership • 3 levels of exposure • None • 1 to 7 years of membership • 8 or more years

  11. Statistical Analyses Descriptive • demographic and operational characteristics Analytic • regression analyses • adjusted RR (95% CI) • account for clustering, binomial regression

  12. Results

  13. Participants 50 Rural Municipalities 2,392 Farms AHSN > 8 yrs n = 664 farms AHSN < 8 yrs n = 1034 farms AHSN 0 yrs n = 688 farms

  14. Demographic Comparisons §adjusted for number of family members; age of the owner/operator; main family residence; education of owner/operator. †unable to calculate due to small numbers ‡ adjusted for number of family members; age of the owner/operator; main family residence. §adjusted for number of family members; age of the owner/operator; main family residence; education of the owner operator and number of tractors, combines, augers, grain bins and water hazards as appropriate.

  15. Physical Safety Hazards §adjusted for number of family members; age of the owner/operator; main family residence; education of owner/operator. †unable to calculate due to small numbers ‡ adjusted for number of family members; age of the owner/operator; main family residence. §adjusted for number of family members; age of the owner/operator; main family residence; education of the owner operator and number of tractors, combines, augers, grain bins and water hazards as appropriate.

  16. Hazardous Practices Children

  17. Hazardous PractisesYoung Workers

  18. Training and Supervision Young Workers

  19. Injuries

  20. Limitations • Non-compliance with intervention • Not possible to evaluate safety consciousness among non-participants • unable to control for effect of exposure to other interventions

  21. Strengths • large and longstanding intervention • large study population: • 5 492 people, 2 386 farms • robust evaluation: • “hard” outcome measures

  22. Conclusion 1 • After 19 years, the educational interventions were not associated with observable differences in farm safety practices, physical farm hazards or farm-related injury outcomes

  23. Conclusion 2 There is a need for the agricultural sector to extend its injury prevention initiatives to the full public health model. Education alone is insufficient. Education Engineering Enforcement

  24. Publication: Hagel LM, Pickett W, Pahwa P, Day L, Brison RJ, Marlenga BL, Crowe T, Snodgrass P, Ulmer K and Dosman JA. Prevention of agricultural injuries: An evaluation of an educational intervention. Injury Prevention 2008; 14(5)

More Related