health and safety education, prevention, promotion in agriculture
DESCRIPTION
Health and Safety Education, Prevention, Promotion in Agriculture. Risto Rautiainen, MS Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health. Aims. Review Ag at Risk Goals Review recent educational programs Assess program effectiveness Conclusions Recommendations. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Health and Safety Education, Prevention,
Promotion in Agriculture
Risto Rautiainen, MS
Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health
Aims
• Review Ag at Risk Goals
• Review recent educational programs
• Assess program effectiveness
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
Agriculture at Risk RecommendationsLegislative • 1.2.4. Provide a National Clearinghouse and health
information network Education 2. Develop Clearinghouse; identify, collect, list, store,
disseminate info on materials and organizations3. Develop comprehensive set of materials, curriculum 6. Improvement of educational programs for at-risk
populations:• Evaluation of methodologies used to educate at-risk
populations, and initiation of new educational programs• Use of set-asides from workers compensation funds for
health and safety training• Increase the number of training programs through
currently established mechanisms
Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health Feasibility Study, 1995. Participation in Health and Safety Activities in Iow a and Surrounding States
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Extension FFA Healthcare Other
None
Other
OHS training
First aid training
Info for media
Phone consultation
Personal consultation
Conferences
School programs
Day camps
Displays
OHS meetings
Clearinghouse - Dissemination of Educational Materials
Videos
Books
Booklets
Brochures
Fact sheets
Websites
Displays
Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health – Clearinghouse Project 1996-99 (Rautiainen et al, 2000)
• 4316 Materials identified• 230 Publishers• Format: videos (1,162), booklets/brochures
(886), abstracts (704), fact sheets (423), slides (175), books (162), and electronic resources (111).
• Topics: Machinery (699), chemicals (566),injuries (364), special populations (309)
Great PlainsCenter for Agricultural Health - Clearinghouse Project Publishing Year of Identified Educational Materials (n=1550)
020406080
100120140160180200
Publishing year
Numb
er of
matr
ials
South Carolina Farm Leaders for Agricultural Safety and Health (FLASH)
Program. Harper (1998):
• Post-workshop focus groups and interviews
• Local community educational programs were carried out; educational materials were distributed to 100 local leaders and educators
• No significant change in attitudes or knowledge of farm safety
Media Campaigns
• Radio
• TV
• Farm Journals
• Newspapers
• Local papers
• Internet
Information Campaign, Iowa, 1992; messages through radio, newspapers, safety publications. Rodriguez (1997)
• Baseline and follow-up phone survey of 460 farmers
• Awareness: mean score increased from 67.25 to 68.88, p=0.035
• Concern: mean score increased from 78.50 to 79.91, p=0.011
• Behavior: mean score increased from 73.01 to 74.17, p=0.020
Educational Events
Fairs
Trade shows
Day camps
Meetings
Seminars
Cass Youth Safety Fair, Cass County Iowa, September 1991. Clarahan (1995)
• Ages 8-15 years
• Pre- and post-tests administered on the day of event
• 27% increase in correct responses to farm safety questions
Farm Safety Day Camp, Colorado, 1991. Schmeising (1991)
• 4th-6th grades
• Pre- and post-tests in participants’ schools
• Correct responses to questions on farm safety topics increased, depending on topic, from 58-77% compared to pre-tests
Farm safety day camps, Fruita & Montrose, Colorado, summer 1992. Buchan (1993)
• Ages 4-17 years
• 15-month post-intervention telephone survey of parents
• Increase in knowledge acquisition ranged from 45 -100%; behavioral changes ranged from 31- 84.5%
Community Family Farm Seminars, Iowa, 1995. Burgus (1997)
• Evening programs on farm safety
• Post-seminar questionnaires
• Participants expressed the intention to adopt behavior changes
Farm-Church Partnership Project. Reed (1994)
• Farm safety fair in rural church setting• Post questionnaires and informal interviews• Farm walk-about checklist completed after
returning home and turned in to local feed store for discount
• Over 50% of participating families indicated that they incorporated safety changes on their farms
Health and Safety Training
Tractor Certification Programs, WI. Wilkinson (1993)
• 14-15 years or age• Pre and post surveys of youth and parents• 15% increase in exposure to non ROPS
tractors• Carrying extra riders increased slightly • Youth riding as an extra rider decreased• 9% increase in inspections of tractors • Parents reported that their child’s knowledge
and behavior improved.
Indiana 4-H Tractor Program. Carrabba (2000)
• 4-6 two hour educational meetings• Regional and state tractor operator contest• Group of >100 participants studiedParticipants showed: • More tractor exposure time but not more
injuries• More ROPS and seatbelt use• higher scores in starting, driving, obstacle
course, dismounting, etc.
Safety training for farmer-loggers, Sweden. Jansson (1988)
• 15 one-day courses with demonstrations over a 3-week period, took place in the forest
• Post-intervention survey of participants and telephone survey of controls
• 71% reported a change in working methods • Use of protective leg guards increased from
65% to 90%; 40% of controls used them• Use of protective boots changed from 65% to
85%; 40% of controls used them
Health and Safety Networks
• Membership
• Information
• Other services
Saskatchewan agricultural health and safety network. Hagel et al (1999)
• Established 1988
• 21,500 members, 38% of SK farmers
• $10 CAD annual fee
• Educational materials, events, consultation, seminars, health screenings, website
• Strong participation demonstrates need
Farm Hazard Identification Programs
Farm Safety Walkabout, Iowa. Hawk (1995)
• Conducted 1990-91• Groups: extension/FFA, health professional,
and farm families on their own• Pre-test- post-test• Each group had significant change in
behavior scores (p<0.001)• Having a professional help administer the
program on the farm improved effectiveness
Agricultural Safety and Health Best Management Practices Manual (BMP). Legault and Murphy (2000)
• Hazard audits on the farm, standard assessment method
• Baseline and post intervention audits on 150 PA farms
• 3 groups; BMP, education, control
• BMPM group reduced hazards most
Comprehensive Occupational Health Service Programs
Certified Safe Farm Program, Iowa, Nebraska. Donham et al. (2000)
• Health Screening, Education, On-farm safety review, Rebate ($200/year)
• >125 intervention, >125 control farms• Follow-up of health outcomes and exposures
Preliminary results:• Some reductions in self reported numbers of
health outcomes and serious injuries • Improvements in farm safety review scores• Reductions in dust, gas, noise exposures
Reindeer husbandry safety, Finland. Pekkarinen (1992)
• Conducted in Lapland, 1985-87• Questionnaire identified high risk behaviors;
herders were educated at health exams and by letter about 34 safety recommendations
• Pre/post questionnaires• Herders implemented an average of 5.8
measures per herder in 1987• Injury incidence decreased from 21
injuries/1000 work days in 1985 to 12/1000 work days in 1987
West Jutland Study, Denmark. Carstensen (1998)
• Randomized intervention of 200 farms• Intervention group had a farm inspection and
one-day safety course• Injury surveillance and behavior checks• Intervention: reduction from 33.4 to 20.1
injuries per 100,000 work hours (p<0.05); improvement in behaviors for 66 work routines
• Control: no reduction in injury incidence, no improvement in behaviors
National model for farmer’s occupational health services, Finland. Husman (1990)
• Model evaluation study 1979-88• Farm visit or interview, recommendations,
education, clinical physical exam, follow-up every two years
• Pre/post intervention survey of participants and controls
• Increase in knowledge and use of PPE• No improvement in working conditions, e.g.
changes in engineering and work practices
Conclusions• Universities, Extension, Ag Centers, and
national organizations have Clearinghouse functions but no single major clearinghouse exists
• Materials were developed in the early 1990’s; many are available through NIOSH/NASD
• Many materials were duplicative and are currently in need of update.
• Education is necessary but education alone is not adequate – works well as part of comprehensive programs
• Education relies on repeating the message and constantly developing new approaches
Conclusions (Cont.)• Most educational program evaluation
studies showed some degree of success.
• Evaluation methods were limited to pre/post test design.
• Most studies measure self reported knowledge, attitude or behaviors – not injuries or illnesses
• Knowledge -> attitude -> behavior -> reduced injuries/illnesses?
Agriculture at Risk RecommendationsLegislative • 1.2.4. Provide a National Clearinghouse and health
information network B-Education 2. Develop Clearinghouse; identify, collect, list, store,
disseminate info on materials and organizations B-3. Develop comprehensive set of materials, curriculum C6. Improvement of educational programs for at-risk
populations:• Evaluation of methodologies used to educate at-risk
populations, and initiation of new educational programs C• Use of set-asides from worker compensation funds for
health and safety training F• Increase the number of training programs through
currently established mechanisms B-
Recommendations
• Develop a National Action Plan for Health and Safety Education
• Develop a National Clearinghouse for Agricultural Health and Safety Resources
• Enhance National and State information dissemination networks for farmers
• Evaluate model educational and informational programs and use sound evaluation methods to assess the effectiveness