Assessing Health and Safety Concerns and Psychological Stressors among Agricultural Workers in the U.S. Midwest.

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health Pub Date : 2020-01-20 DOI:10.13031/jash.13660
Kanika Arora, Marsha Cheyney, Fredric Gerr, Divya Bhagianadh, Jenna Gibbs, T Renée Anthony
{"title":"Assessing Health and Safety Concerns and Psychological Stressors among Agricultural Workers in the U.S. Midwest.","authors":"Kanika Arora,&nbsp;Marsha Cheyney,&nbsp;Fredric Gerr,&nbsp;Divya Bhagianadh,&nbsp;Jenna Gibbs,&nbsp;T Renée Anthony","doi":"10.13031/jash.13660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is limited research exploring agricultural workers' own perspectives on the relative importance of the hazards and stressors they experience. There is also a lack of evidence on whether this reporting differs by method of elicitation. Finally, very little research exists on how to improve mail survey response rates among agricultural workers. We examined health and safety concerns and psychological stressors among Midwestern farmers. We assessed whether these reports varied by survey mode (mail survey versus in-person survey). The efficacy of two different types of incentives to enhance mail survey response rates among agricultural workers was also investigated. In 2018, a needs assessment survey was developed and mailed to a random sample of farm owner-operators in Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri, with randomly assigned prepaid or promised monetary incentives. In-person surveys were conducted among farm owner-operators and hired workers at three regional farm shows in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The mail survey response rates were compared by incentive type. Content analysis was used to generate themes associated with health and safety concerns and psychological stressors, which were then ranked by frequency counts. Chi-square tests were used to analyze variation in the distribution of these themes by survey mode. The response rate for the $1 prepaid incentive was double that of the $10 promised incentive. Content analysis identified 13 health and safety concerns and eight psychological stressors. Chemicals, equipment/tools, and health outcomes were the most frequently noted health and safety concerns. Finances, climate/weather, and farm workload and management were the most frequently noted psychological stressors. Although there was considerable overlap in survey responses across mail and in-person respondents, important differences by sample and survey mode characteristics were observed. The results can support a variety of stakeholders in prioritizing and developing interventions and educational resources to address health and safety concerns and psychological stressors among Midwestern farmers. Our findings also contribute to the evidence base on primary data collection methods for agricultural workers.</p>","PeriodicalId":45344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.13031/jash.13660","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.13660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

There is limited research exploring agricultural workers' own perspectives on the relative importance of the hazards and stressors they experience. There is also a lack of evidence on whether this reporting differs by method of elicitation. Finally, very little research exists on how to improve mail survey response rates among agricultural workers. We examined health and safety concerns and psychological stressors among Midwestern farmers. We assessed whether these reports varied by survey mode (mail survey versus in-person survey). The efficacy of two different types of incentives to enhance mail survey response rates among agricultural workers was also investigated. In 2018, a needs assessment survey was developed and mailed to a random sample of farm owner-operators in Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri, with randomly assigned prepaid or promised monetary incentives. In-person surveys were conducted among farm owner-operators and hired workers at three regional farm shows in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The mail survey response rates were compared by incentive type. Content analysis was used to generate themes associated with health and safety concerns and psychological stressors, which were then ranked by frequency counts. Chi-square tests were used to analyze variation in the distribution of these themes by survey mode. The response rate for the $1 prepaid incentive was double that of the $10 promised incentive. Content analysis identified 13 health and safety concerns and eight psychological stressors. Chemicals, equipment/tools, and health outcomes were the most frequently noted health and safety concerns. Finances, climate/weather, and farm workload and management were the most frequently noted psychological stressors. Although there was considerable overlap in survey responses across mail and in-person respondents, important differences by sample and survey mode characteristics were observed. The results can support a variety of stakeholders in prioritizing and developing interventions and educational resources to address health and safety concerns and psychological stressors among Midwestern farmers. Our findings also contribute to the evidence base on primary data collection methods for agricultural workers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估美国中西部农业工人的健康和安全问题及心理压力源。
有有限的研究,探讨农业工人自己的观点,他们所经历的危害和压力源的相对重要性。关于这种报告是否因启发方法而有所不同,也缺乏证据。最后,关于如何提高农业工人邮件调查回复率的研究很少。我们调查了中西部农民的健康和安全问题以及心理压力因素。我们评估了这些报告是否因调查模式而异(邮件调查与面对面调查)。两种不同类型的激励措施对提高农业工人邮件调查回复率的效果也进行了调查。2018年,我们开发了一项需求评估调查,并随机邮寄给爱荷华州、俄亥俄州和密苏里州的农场主和经营者,并随机分配预付或承诺的金钱奖励。在爱荷华州、明尼苏达州和内布拉斯加州的三个地区农场展上,对农场主和雇工进行了面对面的调查。邮件调查的回应率按激励类型进行比较。内容分析用于生成与健康和安全问题以及心理压力源相关的主题,然后根据频率计数对其进行排名。卡方检验通过调查模式分析这些主题分布的变化。预付1美元奖励的回复率是承诺10美元奖励的两倍。内容分析确定了13个健康和安全问题以及8个心理压力因素。化学品、设备/工具和健康结果是最常被提及的健康和安全问题。财务、气候/天气、农场工作量和管理是最常见的心理压力源。虽然在邮件和面对面受访者的调查回应中有相当大的重叠,但在样本和调查模式特征方面观察到重要的差异。研究结果可以支持各种利益攸关方确定优先次序并制定干预措施和教育资源,以解决中西部农民的健康和安全问题以及心理压力。我们的发现也为农业工人的原始数据收集方法提供了证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Warning Methods for Remotely Supervised Autonomous Agricultural Machines. Farmers' Perceptions of Grain Bin Entry Hazards. Parents' Risk Acceptance and Attitudes Toward the Use of Quad Bikes by Children and Young People in Sweden. Cultural Factors, Migrant Status, and Vulnerability to Increasing Temperatures among Hispanic/Latino Farmworkers: A Systematic Review. Summary of Known U.S. Injuries and Fatalities Involving Livestock Waste Storage, Handling, and Transport Operations: 1975-2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1