Injury surveillance in agriculture

Abstract

Information on agricultural trauma is limited and difficult to find. Planning for effective prevention strategies and evaluation is compromised by lack of a good surveillance system. Several agencies and organizations have provided some data. Although their summation is at best an approximation of the real situation, a critical review of current data bases is presented. The literature is also reviewed attempting to characterize agricultural trauma. This characterization was classified into: 1) case descriptions, 2) reviews of general articles on the hazards of farming, and 3) descriptive surveys of agricultural injuries. A summary of the available literature still leaves a rather superficial understanding of the entire injury picture. A new approach to surveillance is necessary to overcome past deficiencies. A combined modality approach is suggested, utilizing on-site survey, mail survey, telephone interviewing, and medical record verification. Trial applications of two such systems in Minnesota are described.

Urban residential fire and flame injuries: a population based study

“…Similar requirements for using combined data sources and modalities have been identified for surveillance of other types of injuries, for example, agricultural injuries. 21 The true incidence of fire related injuries is, nevertheless, even higher than estimated here, because patients with less serious injuries requiring medical care may elect to see their own physicians. Even serious injuries may have been underestimated because of coding errors and incomplete or missing records.…”

Understanding the ergonomic risk for musculoskeletal disorders in the United States agricultural sector

“…The most often causes of injury were kicks, bites, and falls from farm animals (36%), falls from tractors and rollovers (24%), and falls from other farm machinery and attempts to unjam material from moving parts (28%) [Cogbill and Busch, 1985]. These causes have also been identified as major contributors to accidental-related injuries by several individuals [Cordes and Foster, 1988;Gunderson et al, 1990;Stallones, 1990;Cogbill et al, 1991;Brison and Pickett, 1992;Pratt et al, 1992;Zhou and Roseman, 1994;Nordstrom et al, 1995;Schulman et al, 1997;Stueland et al, 1997;Gerberich et al, 2001;Munshi et al, 2002;Browning et al, 2003]. In a recent review article, McCurdy and Carroll [2000] summarized the ranges of the percentage of injuries attributed to certain sources: machinery-18-35%, animals-12-33%, tractors-up to 40%, and falls-16-25%.…”

Recruitment and retention of farm owners and workers for a six-month prospective injury study in New Zealand: a feasibility study

“…However, in the early 1990s researchers noted a dearth of risk factor and detailed exposure information, and that this has hindered the development of properly informed injury control interventions [6-8]. …”