Journal of Agromedicine最新文献

Objective: Suicide among farmers has, over the past 20 years, garnered attention from scholars around the world. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, this paper will present a framework for considering farmer suicide that builds upon the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior and extends our current explanations of suicide to include a multilevel, multifactorial focus on individual, interpersonal, community and systemic factors at the root of stressors contributing to suicide among farmers. Secondly, a blueprint for farmer suicide prevention, leveraging the Water of Systems Change Model, is proposed.

Method: In the spirit of conveying multi-layered influence on farmer suicide while highlighting relevant levels for prevention a parsimonious, prevention-based model of farmer suicide is presented.

Results: The Water of Systems Change (WSC) model incorporates research to bring attention to the community, organizational, and societal conditions that keep a problem, such as farmer suicide, from being eradicated.

Conclusion: Suicide is a societal issue that requires a multi-level response. Farmer suicide is a particular concern, as farmers provide for and support all of us. It is incumbent upon public health and the community-at-large to improve our policies, systems, and contexts to create an environment in which farmers are also provided for and supported.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore farmworkers' experiences of social vulnerability during the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Telephone surveys of 63 migrant and seasonal farmworkers across three major agricultural areas in Florida were conducted. The survey, designed and disseminated with critical support from a statewide farmworker membership and advocacy organization, included items related to social and occupational precarity and a suite of demographic conditions, including specific employment-based indicators and categories. Data were analyzed with SPSS using a series of statistical significance tests including Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact, T-tests, and Mann-Whitney U. An open-ended question regarding employment precarity was also analyzed for frequencies of responses pertaining to a set of descriptive categories.

Results: Survey findings demonstrated a high degree of social vulnerability among the farmworker sample, with notable variation in the type and severity of vulnerability and risk exposure across employment-based indicators and occupational categories. For example, a cross-industry comparison between vegetable field workers and greenhouse nursery workers revealed a disparity in COVID-exposure risk through commuting characteristics, as 43% of vegetable field workers used shared, employer-provided transport, while 68% of nursery workers used personal vehicles.

Conclusion: While previous research has broadly established the extreme precarity of migrant and seasonal farmworkers during the peak COVID-19 period, the variability of experience, exposure to risk, and social vulnerability between farmworkers representing distinct employment-based indicators and occupational categories demonstrated in this study contributes to widening awareness of the importance of assessing farmworker experiences at a more granular level. In addition to delineating social vulnerability across key demographic categories, cross-industry comparisons between farmworkers revealed significant discrepancies in risk and vulnerability to COVID-19. Future research that further explores this variability may reveal opportunities to improve disaster-relief planning and mitigate social vulnerability in future disaster scenarios. The importance of surveying the vulnerability of worker populations, aside from geographic communities, is highlighted.

Objectives: Adolescents are at-risk of fatal and non-fatal injuries in the farm environment. School-based agricultural safety and farm injury prevention education is likely to be more effective when utilizing co-designed and gamification principles; however, this needs to be tested. This study examined data from a pilot evaluation of a co-designed farm injury prevention gamified educational resource for adolescents.

Methods: Online, anonymous surveys were conducted with students studying agriculture in regional Australia who had previously participated in the co-design process to develop "Calm Your Farm". Three courses were developed (vehicles, workshop, and water safety) and before and after playing each of the courses for the first time, students completed survey questions regarding self-reported knowledge on the course topic, and assessment of content, design, ease of play, and how much they learned. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi square tests of association, and independent sample t tests.

Results: We analyzed 66 responses (66.7% male; 60.6% aged 13 years). Staged course release meant all respondents assessed the vehicle and workshop courses, while 58% assessed the water safety course. Vehicle and workshop courses were rated 7.64 out of a possible 10 (SD = 1.85) and 7.65 (SD = 1.78), respectively, for the information presented, slightly higher than water safety (7.47 [SD = 1.91]). Statistically significant improvements in self-reported knowledge post play were seen among boys for the water safety course (63% said knowledge improved; X² = 4.98; p = .026) and 13-year-olds for vehicles (35%; X² = 4.31; p = .038) and workshop safety (50%; X² = 4.29; p = .038). Respondents indicated being more likely to replay the game at school (M = 6.62 [SD = 2.96]) than at home (M = 5.57 [SD = 3.07]). Of respondents, 61% (n = 40) agreed that "Calm Your Farm" taught them more about farm safety and was more fun than other farm safety education previously received. Tractor safety (62%), chemical safety (58%), and firearm safety (58%) were the most popular topics suggested to be added to the game.

Conclusion: The co-design and gamification approach taken with "Calm Your Farm" appeared to be successful in improving self-reported knowledge around farm injury prevention and was perceived by 62% of the respondents as being fun and educational. Future expansion should incorporate student suggested topics.

Objectives: Agricultural workers are at risk of heat-related illness, which is preventable. Few field studies have compared farmworker-relevant heat exposure in different conditions. We examined heat exposure over time in different potential shade and work locations to inform future occupational heat prevention approaches.

Methods: We assessed heat exposure in Eastern Washington State (WA) cherry and grape fields in August 2022. QUESTemp° monitors recorded Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and Black Globe Temperature (BGT) every 10 min from approximately 07:00-14:00 for three days in the center of crop rows (mid-row), under portable shade structures (shade), and in open field (open) locations. Linear mixed effects regression (LMER) models compared WBGT and BGT among field locations. Hourly time-weighted average WBGT and comparisons with occupational exposure limits (OELs) were computed for different hypothetical work-rest cycles during the hottest sampling hours, assuming different worker effort levels, rest locations (mid-row versus shade), and acclimatization statuses.

Results: Across all crops and locations during the study period, the mean/SD air temperature was 31°C (88°F)/3.9°C (6.9°F), with a maximum temperature of 39°C (102°F) and a mean/SD relative humidity of 30%/9.6%. LMER models suggested no significant difference in mid-row versus open WBGT but significantly lower WBGT in shade versus open locations for both cherries (main effect -5.14: 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.97,-3.32) and grapes (-6.20: 95%CI -7.73,-4.67), though this difference diminished over the course of the day. BGT was significantly higher in the mid-row than the shade (cherries main effect 14.33: 95%CI 9.52,19.13 and grapes 17.10: 95%CI 13.44,20.75). During the hottest sampling hour, the exceedances of OELs were reduced with assumptions of increased shaded break lengths, reduced effort level, and acclimatization.

Conclusions: Shade canopies, but not the crops studied, provided significant reductions in heat exposure. We observed increased protection from heat assuming longer shaded breaks and reduced effort levels. Results highlight the need for additional field research on the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of different shade types and work-rest cycles to guide employer optimization of best practices for worker protections, including acclimatization before high heat, sufficient shaded rest time, reduced effort levels as the day warms, and avoiding work in peak heat.

Objectives: The objective of the current study is to describe mental health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people who work in agriculture in the U.S.

Methods: This study uses a survey of LGBTQ+ adults who work in agriculture in the U.S. (N = 148), including questions about LGBTQ+ identity, farming background, depression symptoms (PHQ-8) and diagnosis, anxiety symptoms (GAD-7) and diagnosis, suicide risk, and stress. Data were analyzed using SPSS, including descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Over one-third (36.1%) had probable depression (PHQ-8 ≥ 10), and 71.9% were experiencing mild to severe depression symptoms. Nearly half (46.2%) had probable anxiety disorder (GAD-7 ≥ 8), and 69.7% experienced mild to severe anxiety symptoms. Over half (51.7%) were at significant risk for suicide. Greater proportions of men had probable anxiety disorder, probable depression, and suicide risk compared to non-men. Greater proportions gay participants had probable depression, as did beef producers. Perceived stress was higher for men, lesbian and gay participants, transgender participants, and those in beef production. Resilient coping was highest among participants who were genderqueer or genderfluid, bisexual, and those in field crop production.

Conclusion: LGBTQ+ farmers in the current sample experienced depression and anxiety at higher rates than general farming or general LGBTQ+ samples, although suicide risk was lower than for general LGBTQ+ samples. Future research should explore how working in agriculture may be protective against suicide risk for LGBTQ+ farmers, as well as how specific farm stressors are related to LGBTQ+ farmer mental health.

Objective: Storytelling engages audiences, passes down traditions and history, educates, and helps people understand and interpret their environment. Many of those who work in agriculture have been part of the storytelling tradition since childhood. Research has demonstrated the emotional impact of personal stories and how prevention information is conveyed effectively "farmer to farmer" through this method of communication.

Methods: Since 2016, the Telling the Story Project has provided a space for those directly or indirectly involved in an agricultural incident to share their story and unique perspectives on how similar incidents can be avoided.

Results: This collaborative project, developed between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Agriculture Safety Centers, has resulted in 11 stories on a dedicated website, safety and health resources, and educational guides. The stories and educational guidelines have been marketed extensively through traditional and social media sources, employed in safety training, and embraced by educators in agricultural programs. The website has provided a national and international reach with more than 35,000 visits.

Conclusion: Qualitative thematic analysis of the stories provided data on the circumstances leading up to each incident, valuable information on how the storytellers interpreted the aftermath, and a novel perspective on how safety professionals can create messaging that will resonate with the farming community.

With demographic trends highlighting an inversion of the farming community age pyramid, with those aged 65 years and over constituting the fastest growing subgroup of the farming population globally, this article highlights a social initiative for older farmers called Farmer's Yards, embodying values, and aspirations pertinent to farmers in their later years, that is helping to create an age-friendly environment in farming in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines. By providing older farmers with a platform for sustained social engagement and inclusion within the farming community, this social initiative aligns with principles promoting active and healthy aging, thereby contributing positively to their mental health and wellbeing in later life. In doing so, Farmer's Yards is helping to address recent calls by the European Commission for an increased emphasis on the delivery of creative mechanisms that enhance the quality of life of older farmers through social policy. The pilot phase of this social initiative outlined in this article, held in a Livestock Mart (Auction Market) setting in the west of Ireland, demonstrates how Farmer's Yards can strengthen Mart's long-standing position and reputation as centres of social activity within rural areas by helping older farmers maintain legitimate social connectedness, collegiality, and comradeship with their peers in advancing age in their respective regions, and in turn, combat social isolation and loneliness in later life. Recommendations for future research and on the expansion of Farmer's Yards are subsequently outlined.

Objectives: In this study, the project team was interested in learning from Wisconsin farmers and farm families about: (1) the unique stressors farmers face, (2) the barriers that exist for farmers to seek help for mental and physical health, and (3) coping strategies that could be implemented to help farm families cope with stress.

Methods: The project team collected qualitative data utilizing standardized questions during three focus groups held via Zoom. The 10 participants were from various Wisconsin farm enterprises including dairy, beef, and produce farms. Data were coded into five codes: stressors, farmers as a unique subculture, barriers to seeking help, coping strategies, and strategies for addressing barriers to seeking help.

Results: Participants emphasized the need for healthcare professionals to better understand farming is more than a job; it is their life. The top stressor was time pressure and the top barrier to seeking care was workload, which make it challenging to get off the farm. Stigma and self-reliance are additional barriers in the farming community. Participants offered strategies to address these barriers, including learning how to effectively communicate with farmers and raising awareness of mental health issues in rural communities.

Conclusion: The insights from this study can inform rural healthcare professionals on strategies to better support the mental and physical well-being of farmers and their families in Wisconsin and rural communities in the United States.

Objectives: This study examined the factors affecting the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among US agriculture producers, specifically focusing on chemical, respiratory, and hearing protection. The primary goals were to identify demographic and farm-related factors linked to lower PPE usage and to explore the associations between PPE use and self-reported injuries or diseases in this occupational context.

Methods: We developed generalized multilevel multinomial logistic regressions for the agricultural safety and health survey data from 2018 and 2020. Our models aimed to explore associations between PPE use, covariates, and their impact on skin diseases, hearing loss, and respiratory diseases. The hierarchical structure of the data was accommodated by designating the survey year as the level-3 variable and the state of residence as the level-2 variable, further delineating the nested structure of the respondents. We proposed using Adaptive Quadrature methods to approximate marginal maximum likelihood function, along with Gauss-Hermite quadrature weights when estimating fixed-effects and random effects in the proposed models. Missing data in this hierarchical structure were addressed through a multiple imputation method.

Results: Our findings revealed older age is associated with lower PPE usage across all types. Males exhibited higher PPE use, particularly for chemical (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.47) and respiratory protection (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.18, 1.52). Producers on grain-only farms showed increased chemical PPE use (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.43) compared to those on livestock-only farms. Additionally, individuals spending 0%-24% of their worktime on the farm/ranch demonstrated lower PPE use than those who spent more time engaged in farm-related activities.

Conclusion: The study underscores the importance of addressing low PPE usage among agriculture producers. Interventions tailored to specific groups, such as female producers, livestock-only farms, older-aged producers, and part-time producers, can effectively improve PPE use. By identifying these high-risk groups, interventions can be better adapted and targeted to enhance the adoption of PPE, subsequently reducing the risk of health hazards in the agriculture sector.

Objectives: Health and well-being have long been identified as key issues for investigation within agricultural communities. While myriad studies have been conducted to investigate causation, impact, outcomes and interventions among farming populations, the overall emphasis has been disproportionately weighted away from the experiences of women. This systematic scoping review determines the prevalence of topics, identifies the target populations and geographical locations of studies, outlines methodological approaches to the subject area, and summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the available literature.

Methods: With the guidance of the Arksey and O'Malley framework for conducting a scoping review, a single database search for publications focusing on the health and well-being of women in farming (including primary farmers, members of farm households, and farmworkers), in the Global North, published between 1990 and 2023, was conducted. Data were organized, thematically coded, critically appraised and analyzed using the systematic review online tool CADIMA.

Results: In total, 93 studies met the inclusion criteria for full review. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States, with the number of publications steadily increasing since the 1990s. Of studies, 68% were wholly quantitative in nature, and 23% wholly qualitative. Key findings suggest women are at particular risk from certain illnesses associated with some aspects of agricultural work and face a number of stressors (including gender-specific issues) that can lower well-being, but evidence is scarce in a number of areas. Clear gaps in research exist in relation to reproductive health, caring responsibilities, or help-seeking and support. Women primary farmer and farmworkers are particularly neglected as study cohorts.

Conclusion: Numbers of studies related to the health and well-being of women in farming are still relatively small in comparison with the wider body of related literature, and there exists an obvious need for further studies with a specific emphasis on particular cohorts, issues pertaining to the contemporary climate, and issues specific to women, as well as greater geographical reach. By emphasizing such research gaps, opportunities exist to improve the health and well-being situation of women in agriculture through more explicit studies with the intention of developing more effective, targeted solutions.