Wisconsin dairy traumatic occupational injury intervention.
NIOSH 2006 Mar; :1-47
This project conducted and evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention in the workplace intended to prevent and reduce traumatic agricultural injuries. We built on our on-going intervention among the 21,000 dairy operations in Wisconsin in 2000 that constituted 20% of the nation's operations and employ over 73,500 workers. Since there was no effective workplace safety regulation for most of this industry, our intervention strategy focused on encouraging the adoption of production practices that are more profitable as well as safer. Our principal outcome measures were those which monitored our intervention's success at the population level (i.e. what percent had adopted for each innovation, what percent was aware). As of this report date (3/15/06) we're continuing to check and confirm data quality, so the results presented in this report are tentative and may be subject to later correction. We accomplished the following specific aims (as specified in our 4/15/01 original application): A. Continue, for three additional years, a community-based, information-dissemination intervention among Wisconsin dairy producers that will reduce traumatic injuries by persuading operation managers to adopt safer and more efficient work methods. We sought to reduce hazards (and thereby injuries) by improving information flow to dairy operation managers to persuade them to adopt production methods that are both safer and more profitable. We began continuing the intervention in the first year of this application. B. Conduct annual, large sample, mail questionnaire-based scientific evaluation of the information dissemination intervention that includes both process and outcome measures. We refined and continued, for three additional years, the administration of mail questionnaires that tapped both process and outcome measures to separate, rolling, population-based probability samples of the study group (n=800/yr) and a control group (n=400 Maryland dairy farmers/yr). We intended to: 1) determine if our materials were reaching the target audience and which intervention aspects are most effective, 2) determine whether dairy producer adoption and awareness of each production method increased, and 3) determine whether dairy farmer perceptions of each hazard- reducing production method's relative safety or profit advantages were improving. C. Add one or two traumatic injury-reducing production methods to the intervention in each of the three additional intervention years. We will seek out reports from farmers and others about emerging production methods that could improve both traumatic injury safety and profits. We will evaluate the hazard-reducing and profit-enhancing aspects of the best production methods. We add three new production methods with the clear labor-saving and traumatic injury reducing advantages (i.e. custom forage harvesting, headlocks in the dairy barn, elimination of bulls/exclusive reliance on artificial insemination) to the intervention and promoted them statewide in the last three intervention years of the project.
Agricultural-industry; Agricultural-processes; Agricultural-workers; Farmers; Accident-analysis; Accident-prevention; Injury-prevention; Traumatic-injuries; Cattle-industry
Biological Systems Engineering Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 460 Henry Mall, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Final Grant Report
NTIS Accession No.
Disease and Injury: Traumatic Injuries
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Biological Systems Engineering Department, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706