Agricultural Disability Awareness and Risk Education (AgDARE) for high school students

Abstract

Objective-Develop and test a farm health and injury prevention educational intervention for high school agriculture students. Setting-Twenty one high schools in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi. Methods-A quasiexperimental crossover design was used to test the eVectiveness of two sets of instructional materials designed through participatory action research with agriculture teachers and students. Narrative simulations based on farm work stories and simulations of farm work while students pretended to have a disability were completed in 14 schools (n = 373) over the academic year. Students in seven control schools (n = 417) received no intervention but completed, in the same time frame as students in the treatment schools, demographic surveys and premeasures and post-measures of farm safety attitudes and intent to change safety behaviors. One year after the intervention, 29 students from the treatment group received farm visits to measure their farm safety behaviors. Results-Students engaged in hazardous work on farms. Thirty two were involved in tractor overturns and 11 had received injuries from rotating power take-oV mechanisms. One fourth reported hearing problems, and 21% had respiratory symptoms after working in dusty farm surroundings. Students who completed at least two physical and two narrative simulations of the Agricultural Disability Awareness and Risk Education (AgDARE) curriculum showed statistically significant positive changes in farm safety attitude and intent to change behaviors. Conclusions-Adolescents engage in farm work that places them at risk for injury and illness. The AgDARE curriculum may be an eVective and eYcient method of teaching farm safety in high school agriculture classes. (Injury Prevention 2001;7(Suppl I):i59-63)

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Prevent Childhood Farm Injuries

“…[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] The studies varied widely in the interventions and outcomes studied, the types of injury targeted by the interventions, and the study design and methodologic rigor (QI range: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Although all studies evaluated educational interventions, their focuses varied; 7 were designed for, or examined in, the school setting, [29][30][31][32][33][34][35] 12 were community-based, [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] and 1 was designed for use on the farm. …”

“…29,30,34,38,40,44,47 Ten studies measured changes in safety attitudes and/or behavior as 1 of their principal outcomes. 29,35,39,40,[42][43][44][45]47,48 Many of these studies evaluated short-term changes; 2 studies reported outcomes measured the year after training, 42,43 and 1 study evaluated effects on behavior at 1 year after the intervention for a small subset of the original sample. 35 One study measured recall of farm hazards at 1, 14, and 28 days and the extent to which children made comparisons with their own farms.…”

“…29,35,39,40,[42][43][44][45]47,48 Many of these studies evaluated short-term changes; 2 studies reported outcomes measured the year after training, 42,43 and 1 study evaluated effects on behavior at 1 year after the intervention for a small subset of the original sample. 35 One study measured recall of farm hazards at 1, 14, and 28 days and the extent to which children made comparisons with their own farms. 33 Another Farm parents who were exposed to the enhanced dissemination strategy were more likely to use NAGCAT QI: 29…”

“…33,44,45 Seven studies were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1999 and 2002, 32,33,[35][36][37]39,46 and 1 was published in a book. 48 Four studies were identified as abstracts, 30,31,40,47 4 were presentations, 29,41-43 3 were reports, 38,44,45 and information for 1 was found on a Web site.…”

“…[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] These studies consistently reported positive results in terms of short-term knowledge acquisition or changes in attitudes toward farm safety. Results showed enhanced outcomes with active, hands-on participation, as opposed to passive activities.…”