Interventions for preventing injuries in the agricultural industry

Rautiainen, RH; Lehtola, MM; Day, LM; Salminen, Simo; Schönstein, Eva; Suutarinen, Juha

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006398

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The detailed search strategies have been given elsewhere (5). The following six general databases were searched through June 2006: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Injuries Group's specialized register, MEDLINE (from 1966), EMB�SE (from 1988), �sychINFO (from 1983), and OSH�-ROM (including NIOSH�TIC and H�SELINE).…”

Section: Data Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of interventions in preventing injuries in agriculture—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lehtola¹,

Rautiainen²,

Day³

et al. 2008

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of interventions in preventing injuriesObjectives This study reviewed the effectiveness of interventions in preventing occupational injuries among workers in agriculture.Methods Randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time-series studies assessing interventions aimed at preventing injuries among workers in agriculture were considered. MEDLINE and five other databases were searched up to June 2006. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies and the methodological quality of the ones included. Randomized controlled trials were combined in a meta-analysis. Interrupted time-series studies were reanalyzed to assess the immediate and progressive effect on injuries.Results Five randomized controlled trials and three interrupted time-series studies met the inclusion criteria.Six studies evaluated educational interventions and financial incentives, and two studies evaluated the effect of educational interventions and financial incentives, and two studies evaluated the effect of legislation. Three randomized controlled trials on educational interventions with �6�0 adult participants did Three randomized controlled trials on educational interventions with �6�0 adult participants did not indicate any injury-reducing effect, with a rate ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.8�-1.20), nor did two randomized controlled trials among children (6895 participants). Financial incentives decreased the injury level immediately after the intervention in one interrupted time-series study. Banning endosulfan pesticide in Sri Lanka led to a significant decrease in the trend of poisonings over time. Legislation requiring rollover protective structures on all tractors in Sweden did not produce a reduction in injuries, but the same requirement for new tractors was associated with a decrease in fatal injuries. ConclusionsThe reviewed studies provided no evidence that educational interventions are effective in decreasing injury rates among agricultural workers. Financial incentives may be a better means of reducing injury rates. Banning highly toxic pesticides may be effective. Legislation on safety devices on tractors yielded contradictory results.Key terms data pooling; evaluation research; intervention study; occupational accident; preventive measure, randomized controlled trial; systematic review. 1This review was adapted from the original Cochrane Review, entitled �Interventions for �reventing Injuries in the �g-entitled �Interventions for �reventing Injuries in the �g-entitled �Interventions for �reventing Injuries in the �g-ricultural Industry", by RH� Rautiainen, MM Lehtola, LM Day, E Schonstein, J Suutarinen, S Salminen, and J �erbeek, Rautiainen, MM Lehtola, LM Day, E Schonstein, J Suutarinen, S Salminen, and J �erbeek, published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1, �rt No: CD006398.

show abstract

Section: Data Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of interventions in preventing injuries in agriculture—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lehtola¹,

Rautiainen²,

Day³

et al. 2008

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the assumption that inadequate awareness, knowledge, and attitudes may result in behaviors causing injuries might have contributed to the inclusion of a high number of items related to training and work procedures for farmers during checklist development. However, it has been confirmed that health and safety intervention programmes in agriculture implemented through education and training are occasionally ineffective [20]. Deroo et al (2000) insisted that many specialists argued that safety management involving the adjustment of workplace environments or system changes through legislation amendments is more effective in reducing injuries, compared to educational programmes [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of checklists for agricultural safety management

Kim¹,

Räsänen²,

Chae³

et al. 2018

Ann Agric Environ Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. The current health and safety management system under the Occupational Health and Safety Act has avoided agriculture in Korea. It is important to consider the various safety systems used in agricultural health and safety to develop effective regulations. Objective. The aims were to classify and review the items from various checklists using safety systems, such as design, training, etc., ultimately aimed at proposing directions for improving the health and safety of farmers. Materials and method. Among the retrieved checklists with Google, four were chosen for this study, based on criteria such as the Checklist developed by an international organization, as well as others. Each item on the checklist was categorized using criteria concerning safety systems, developed based on previous studies. Results. The total number of analyzed items was 573, which is 36 more than the actual number of checklist items (537). The proportion of items belonging to the training/procedures system was the highest (32.5%); the second-highest was for the mitigation system -18.2%.; the third-largest proportion of items was maintenance/inspection -with 14.3%. Items related to the design and human factor systems were 8.2% and 5.6%, respectively. The safety system with the lowest proportion was the warning/notification system -4.2% of the total items. The proportion of items that could not be classified into safety systems was found to be 16.1%. Conclusions. A large number of items belonging to the training/procedures system reported as occasionally not effective in prevention of injury were found in the checklists. It appears important to develop checklist items proposing the supplementation of various safety systems, rather than presenting items that are biased towards certain safety systems.

show abstract

“…The farming industry has a poor injury record which has not changed for many years despite many interventions (14,15). This impact evaluation was wrapped around the existing national intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%