Barriers and Benefits of Protective Eyewear Use by Latino Farm Workers

Abstract

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.

Ocular injuries and eye care seeking patterns following injuries among cocoa farmers in Ghana

“…Farmers who were directly involved in the application (spraying) of chemicals had a higher probability of sustaining eye injuries (OR 2.58, 95% CI: 1.74 -3.82), as well as, those who were engaged in harvesting of the cocoa pod had a likelihood of 2.63 folds of sustaining ocular injuries than those who were not engaged in these activities, these being reported by other authors 9,20,21 . There is therefore the need to highlight the influence of these farm activities in ocular health education among cocoa farmers in Ghana.…”

“…Where variables under investigation were unevenly distributed, the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used and the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) reported accordingly. Bivariate logistic regression was also used to predict the odds of sustaining an eye injury based on some defined exposure, demographics, as well as, farm characteristics supported by the literature 18,21,26 . The odds ratio, at a 95% confidence interval, for the results was also presented.…”

“…Most of the questions were formulated following a thorough review of existing literature on the subject. 18,19,20,21 The questionnaire also included questions/statements on several aspects of ocular injuries such as the number of workdays lost due to eye injuries, as well as, causes and severity of injuries.…”

Chemical exposure reduction: Factors impacting on South African herbicide sprayers' personal protective equipment compliance and high risk work practices

“…1 is based on the literature and informed this study (Atreya, 2007;Barraza et al, 2011;Feola and Binder, 2010;Forst et al, 2006;Hunt et al, 1999;Matthews, 2008;Naidoo et al, 2010;Norgaard, 2007;Palis et al, 2006;Peres, 2007;Rother, 2005;Rother et al, 2010). It illustrates how the interaction between workers' gender dynamics and social status influences PPE compliance and other safety-related behaviours through two different pathways: Firstly, through gender dynamics and social status influences on workers' perceived risks of herbicide use, and secondly through gender dynamics and social status direct impacts on PPE compliance.…”

“…the availability and quality of equipment, correct equipment-e.g. chemical resistant gloves, suitable PPE for local population characteristics) (Forst et al, 2006;MacFarlane et al, 2013;Matthews, 2008). Secondly, by external factors such as weather conditions (extreme heat) and the working environment (Barraza et al, 2011;MacFarlane et al, 2013;Matthews, 2008).…”