CHWs were an effective tool to train farm workers in eye health and safety, improving the use of personal protective equipment and knowledge.

Home care aides (HCAs) provide housekeeping and personal care services to help older clients remain in the community. However, little is known about the health of HCAs, who themselves constitute an underserved population. The goal of this study was to investigate how HCAs’ work and life contexts manifest themselves in HCAs’ health as perceived by HCAs. Six focus groups were conducted with HCAs (N=45). Analysis revealed how HCAs’ work-and life-related stress accumulated over time and affected HCAs’ health and interaction with their older clients. Home care aides were interested in personal health promotion and client well-being. Home care aides may constitute an underused resource for the care of older adults with disabilities. Information about intricately intertwined work and life contexts should inform policymakers and home care providers in their efforts to improve the quality of publicly funded home care services.

This study provides evidence for successful implementation of a training intervention for low wage, low literacy Hispanic construction workers using a community-based participatory research approach.

Agricultural work is one of the riskiest occupations for the eyes. Protective eyewear can prevent eye injuries in upward of 90% of cases. Latino migrant and seasonal farm workers (LFWs) are at particular risk of eye injury because of economic, social, and cultural barriers to safe employment. The goal of this project was to determine the perceived benefits and barriers to use of protective eyewear during agricultural work among LFWs. In the year 2000, 55 workers who spent at least part of their time working in Illinois and Michigan as seasonal, hired farm workers were interviewed either individually (9) or in six focus groups (46) regarding their perceptions of eye hazards and the factors that encourage or discourage the use of protective eyewear. Subsequently, safety glasses and training on eye safety were delivered by promotores de salud to LFWs from the same cohort over two summer seasons. During the second season, the promotores observed the use of safety eyewear by farm workers at least once per week on 17 farms over a three-month period. At each point of observation, the promotores asked those wearing the glasses why they chose to wear them and those who were not wearing them, why not. At both points of the study (pre-intervention interviews and post-intervention observations), the reasons for use fell into the following categories: protection from hazards, appearance, whether it was mandated/provided by the employer, and whether others used it. The reasons for non-use include perceived lack of protection, discomfort, undesirable appearance, interference with visual acuity, slowing down the work pace, and no mandate from employers. Since eliminating the eye injury hazard is not possible in most agricultural settings, administrative strategies and use of personal protective equipment are critical. Perceptions of the target audience, LFWs, should be used to develop a comprehensive eye safety program; this should include allowing LFWs to select a style from effective prototypes, providing eyewear and promoting/mandating its use in hazardous job tasks, and implementing a comprehensive PPE program for eye safety. In addition, addressing functional problems - falling off, fogging, loss and forgetting glasses, the pace slowdown that reduces production and leads to lower wages for workers - should be addressed.

This article presents an analysis of the essential elements of effective occupational safety and health education and training programs targeting under-served communities. While not an exhaustive review of the literature on occupational safety and health training, the paper provides a guide for practitioners and researchers to the key factors they should consider in the design and implementation of training programs for underserved communities. It also addresses issues of evaluation of such programs, with specific emphasis on considerations for programs involving low-literacy and limited-English-speaking workers.