Melissa J Perry1, Peter M Layde. 1. Occupational Health Program, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. mperry@hsph.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to the multiple health risks that farm pesticide applicators experience and the need for controlled trials to evaluate prevention programs, this study tested the effects of a small-group educational intervention designed to increase personal protective equipment (PPE) use and to reduce direct pesticide exposure. DESIGN: A randomized controlled design was used with random selection of participants, random assignment to intervention and control groups, and baseline and postintervention assessments. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred Wisconsin dairy farmers certified to apply pesticides to field crops were recruited to participate over a 1-year evaluation period. INTERVENTION: Three-hour educational sessions were conducted with approximately 100 randomly assigned participants. Sessions targeted four educational messages: (1) existing evidence of excess cancers among farmers, (2) simulation of pesticide exposure presented through slide show and description, (3) feedback of self-reported data collected from the farmers reporting on frequency of exposure and gear use, and (4) cognitive behavioral strategies that can be adopted to reduce pesticide hazards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A change in use of required protective equipment use during application and self-reported dermal exposure were evaluated in the control and intervention groups postintervention. RESULTS: Six-month postintervention analyses showed that an educational intervention had significant effects on the use of gloves and gear during the most recent application and an actual reduction in the total number of pesticides used. However, the intervention did not have a significant impact on achieving full PPE compliance nor in reducing the amount of self-reported dermal pesticide exposure during the most recent application reported by applicators. CONCLUSIONS; This one-time educational intervention successfully increased protective equipment use. However, more-intensive programs are needed to achieve greater reductions in personal pesticide exposure.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In response to the multiple health risks that farm pesticide applicators experience and the need for controlled trials to evaluate prevention programs, this study tested the effects of a small-group educational intervention designed to increase personal protective equipment (PPE) use and to reduce direct pesticide exposure. DESIGN: A randomized controlled design was used with random selection of participants, random assignment to intervention and control groups, and baseline and postintervention assessments. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred Wisconsin dairy farmers certified to apply pesticides to field crops were recruited to participate over a 1-year evaluation period. INTERVENTION: Three-hour educational sessions were conducted with approximately 100 randomly assigned participants. Sessions targeted four educational messages: (1) existing evidence of excess cancers among farmers, (2) simulation of pesticide exposure presented through slide show and description, (3) feedback of self-reported data collected from the farmers reporting on frequency of exposure and gear use, and (4) cognitive behavioral strategies that can be adopted to reduce pesticide hazards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A change in use of required protective equipment use during application and self-reported dermal exposure were evaluated in the control and intervention groups postintervention. RESULTS: Six-month postintervention analyses showed that an educational intervention had significant effects on the use of gloves and gear during the most recent application and an actual reduction in the total number of pesticides used. However, the intervention did not have a significant impact on achieving full PPE compliance nor in reducing the amount of self-reported dermal pesticide exposure during the most recent application reported by applicators. CONCLUSIONS; This one-time educational intervention successfully increased protective equipment use. However, more-intensive programs are needed to achieve greater reductions in personal pesticide exposure.
Authors: María Teresa Muñoz-Quezada; Boris Lucero; Asa Bradman; Kyle Steenland; Liliana Zúñiga; Antonia M Calafat; María Ospina; Verónica Iglesias; María Pía Muñoz; Rafael J Buralli; Claudio Fredes; Juan Pablo Gutiérrez Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Kishore Gnana Sam; Hira H Andrade; Lisa Pradhan; Abhishek Pradhan; Shashi J Sones; Padma G M Rao; Christopher Sudhakar Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2007-10-26 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Xujun Zhang; Weiyan Zhao; Ruiwei Jing; Krista Wheeler; Gary A Smith; Lorann Stallones; Huiyun Xiang Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sara A Quandt; María A Hernández-Valero; Joseph G Grzywacz; Joseph D Hovey; Melissa Gonzales; Thomas A Arcury Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Ming Ye; Jeremy Beach; Jonathan W Martin; Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390