NIOSHTIC-2 Publications Search
Wisconsin production agriculture intervention evaluation.
NIOSH 2003 Aug; :1-29
This project evaluated the effectiveness of two production agriculture interventions intended to prevent or reduce traumatic and musculoskeletal injuries and other occupational health problems. We built on two ongoing efforts: 1) an intervention in Wisconsin among 19% of the nation's 116,874 dairy operations, and 2) an intervention in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa among 18% of the nation's estimated 30,000 fresh market vegetable operations. The project we report on here supported intervention years 4 and 5 of the dairy producer intervention and the associated evaluation. The project also supported intervention years 3 and 4 of the fresh market vegetable producer intervention and the associated evaluation. As described in our original application, we accomplished the following specific aims: Specific Aim #1. Continued the two interventions for 24 additional months. The project attempted to reduce exposures to hazards (and thereby reduce injuries) by encouraging dairy producers in Wisconsin and fresh market vegetable growers in a four state region (WI, IA, MI, MN) to adopt safer and more profitable production practices. We continued two, specially-designed information dissemination efforts that conveyed information to managers via the information channels that they were already known to use to learn about new production practices (i.e. print media, public events, other farmers, university Extension, the Internet, etc.). We began continuing the interventions in the first year of this project when other funding for them ended (March 2000). Specific Aim #2. Evaluated the effectiveness of the interventions. We continued, for two additional years, the administration of annual mail questionnaires and other evaluation procedures. The mail questionnaires were sent to separate, population based probability samples from the dairy farmer treatment group and the fresh market vegetable treatment group. In addition, questionnaires were sent to a dairy farmer control group (Maryland dairy farmers), and a control group for the fresh market vegetable farmers (nursery managers in the same four state region). The purposes of the evaluation were to determine: 1) if our materials were reaching and being received well by the target audience, 2) if farmer adoption or awareness of each production practice or perceptions of relative safety or profit advantages were changing, and 3) if farmer-reported injuries or musculoskeletal discomfort or other outcomes associated with production practices were changing. We also collected qualitative data from interviews with farm managers about barriers to adopting the production practices we were promoting and about how to make our intervention efforts more persuasive. We evaluated after each year of the two additional intervention years (February 2001, February 2002). Specific Aim #3. Added new production practice innovations to each intervention. We sought out reports from farmers and others about emerging production practices that could improve both safety and profits. We undertook field studies to quantitatively evaluate the hazard-reducing and profit-enhancing aspects of the best practices. We developed materials and added a new practice to each intervention each year. This work began at the start of this project (September 1999).
Agricultural-industry; Agricultural-processes; Agricultural-workers; Farmers; Accident-analysis; Accident-prevention; Injury-prevention; Traumatic-injuries; Musculoskeletal-system-disorders
Biological Systems Engineering Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 460 Henry Mall, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Final Grant Report
Research Tools and Approaches: Intervention Effectiveness Research
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Biological Systems Engineering Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Page last reviewed: April 12, 2019
Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Information Division