OBJECTIVES: 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 legislation. Three randomized controlled trials on educational interventions with 4670 adult participants did not indicate any injury-reducing effect, with a rate ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.20), 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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 legislation. Three randomized controlled trials on educational interventions with 4670 adult participants did not indicate any injury-reducing effect, with a rate ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.20), 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
Authors: María Teresa Muñoz-Quezada; Boris Andrés Lucero; Verónica Paz Iglesias; María Pía Muñoz; Claudia Alejandra Cornejo; Eduardo Achu; Brittney Baumert; Arianna Hanchey; Carlos Concha; Ana María Brito; Marcos Villalobos Journal: Int J Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-04-29
Authors: María Teresa Muñoz-Quezada; Boris Lucero; Verónica Iglesias; Karen Levy; María Pía Muñoz; Eduardo Achú; Claudia Cornejo; Carlos Concha; Ana María Brito; Marcos Villalobos Journal: Int J Environ Health Res Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.411
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: Giuseppe Campo; Luca Cegolon; Diego De Merich; Ugo Fedeli; Mauro Pellicci; William C Heymann; Sofia Pavanello; Armando Guglielmi; Giuseppe Mastrangelo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.390