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