Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health最新文献

The purpose of this study was to assess high school agricultural education youth safety knowledge. The target population consisted of high school agricultural education youth, ages 14-19 years, who were enrolled in School Based Agricultural Education programs that utilized the AET agricultural safety exam feature between the dates of May 2019 and June 2020 (N=1478). The safety knowledge questions were randomly generated from the National Safe Tractor and Machinery Operation Program instructor curriculum resources. The exam consisted of 50 multiple-choice and true/false questions with one point being awarded for each correct answer and covered topics such as safety basics, agricultural hazards, tractors, connecting and using implements with tractors and materials handling. The majority of respondents were male (n = 865, 58.5%); and in eleventh grade, twelve grade, or beyond high school (33.8%, 34.3%, and 22.9% respectively). Most respondents indicated they were from a rural area (52.5%), and most had not received formal safety training (74.4%). Test scores for the 1478 respondents ranged from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 98. Within each independent variable, test scores averaged in the low 60's with the exception of test scores from students in 8^th, 9^th, and 10^th grade which averaged 78, 46, and 56 respectively. Research and continuous education are needed to influence the behaviors of young workers in agricultural settings.

Farming ranks among the top occupations for which workers are at risk for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), an irreversible yet preventable condition. Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs) (i.e., earmuffs and ear plugs) are effective at preventing expo- sure to noise; however, few farmers report consistent use. The purpose of this study was to test an intervention based on Social Cognitive Theory with interactive smartphone technology to increase the use of HPDs among swine facility workers. A pilot, quasi-experimental study was implemented among 72 younger adult swine workers. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Group 1 received HPDs (e.g., earmuffs and ear plugs). Group 2 received the same HPDs as Group 1 and was also instructed to use a smartphone application to track their use of hearing protection for 60 days. Group 3 received the HPDs and instructions on using a smartphone app for tracking the use of hearing protection and setting daily goals for hearing protection use. Use of hearing protection was assessed via an online survey prior to the intervention (i.e., "baseline"), immediately after the post-intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Compared to baseline use, all three groups reported increased use of hearing protection immediately post-intervention. However, this increase was not maintained at a 3-month follow-up for two of the study groups. Group 3 (HPD, tracking, and goal-setting app) showed the greatest increase in the use of HPDs from baseline to immediate post-intervention; however, Group 1 (HPD only) showed the greatest sustained increase from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Modifying the environment by supplying HPDs was effective in increasing HPD use among swine facility workers. Improving access to hearing protection devices alone may lead to sustained changes in behavior.

Highlights: Despite a response rate of about 18%, there was scant evidence of nonresponse bias. Farm and ranch characteristics of operations responding to a mailed survey were similar to those not responding. Responders were significantly more likely to be married but only slightly older and more educated than nonresponders. Earlier survey responders reported more injuries and greater severity when injured compared to later responders.

Abstract: Nonresponse bias in a survey can result in misleading estimates of agricultural injuries and can misdirect prevention efforts aimed at reducing the burden of injuries on farmers. Responders (n = 2,977) and nonresponders (n = 13,849) were compared based on demographics and agricultural production characteristics to identify underrepresented subgroups. Injury characteristics were compared between early (n = 1,667) and late (n = 1,309) responders. Methods accounted for correlated data, sample size inflation of p-values, and assessment of meaningful differences. Few differences were identified between responders and nonresponders. Responders differed from nonresponders by state of residence, and responders were more likely to be married. Other characteristics (age, gender, education, farm size, crops grown, animals raised) were similar across groups. Early responders reported more injuries and more often sought medical care for an injury than late responders. The differences identified between responders and nonresponders were minimal and not likely to create bias. Differential reporting of injury and injury severity between early and late responders is worthy of further investigation.

HIGHLIGHTS This study uses a new tractor driving simulator to examine the impact of age on perception response time in an emergency braking situation. The results demonstrate increased risk for crash among older farm equipment operators. ABSTRACT. Transportation-related incidents are the leading cause of occupational fatalities for all industries in the U.S. In the agriculture industry, where tractor-related incidents are the leading cause of occupational fatality, fatal crashes occur more frequently among senior farm equipment operators (FEOs) than younger FEOs. This study examined the association between age and driving performance among FEOs using a simulated driving environment. We demonstrated that older FEOs have longer perception response times when encountering an incurring semi-truck during a simulated drive than younger FEOs. These results persisted when adjusted for selected medical diagnoses and medications, tractor generation, and tractor horsepower. However, due to the small sample size and limitations of the tractor driving simulator, its use for event perception response time research is questionable. The tractor driving simulator used in this study may be better suited for distracted driving studies and studies comparing the ways in which FEOs drive passenger vehicles compared to tractors.