Aaron M. Yoder

Using Social Marketing to Address Barriers and Motivators to Agricultural Safety and Health Best Practices

ABSTRACT Social marketing is an intervention development strategy that pays considerable attention to barriers to and motivators for behavioral change or adoption of recommended behaviors. Barriers are obstacles that prevent individuals from changing or adopting behaviors and are often referred to as the “cons” or “costs” of doing something. Motivators, on the other hand, are factors that encourage individuals to change or adopt behaviors and are often referred to as the “pros,” “benefits,” or “influencing factors” of doing something. Importantly, social marketing does not target education or knowledge change as an end point; rather, it targets behavior change. Studies across several types of desired behaviors (e.g., smoking cessation, weight control, more exercise, sunscreen use, radon testing) using the Stages of Change model have found systematic relationships between stages of change and pros and cons of changing behavior. A review of literature identifies numerous research and intervention studies that directly reference social marketing in agricultural safety and health, studies that identify reasons why parents allow their children to be exposed to hazardous situations on the farm, and reasons why youth engage in risky behaviors, but only two studies were found that show evidence of systematically researching specific behavioral change motivating factors. The authors offer several suggestions to help address issues relating to social marketing and agricultural safety and health.

Evaluation of the farm and agricultural injury classification code and follow-up questionnaire.

The Farm and Agricultural Injury Classification (FAIC) code was developed specifically to identify and classify all agricultural injuries of interest to agricultural safety and health professionals. The FAIC code overcomes fundamental problems of classifying agricultural-related injuries by grouping incidents into categories describing actual exposures encountered on farms and in agricultural work. The successful application of the FAIC code depends largely on a researchers ability to obtain appropriate information to correctly use the code. The purpose of this research project was to: (1) compare data obtained through a newly developed FAIC follow-up questionnaire (FQ) with data from the Penn State Agricultural Injury Database (AID); and (2) test FAIC Code utility, reliability, and construct validity with agricultural safety and health professionals. The FQ improved classification of 57% of cases in the Penn State AID. A majority of agricultural health and safety professionals understood and used the FAIC coding system, without training, to code an average of 75% of the test cases the same as the researcher. A large majority of the professionals that participated in this study judged the FAIC code and the accompanying materials to be very useful.

Utilizing expert panels in agricultural safety and health research.

This article reports on the use of expert panels by Purdue Universitys Agricultural Safety and Health Program staff to address three separate research questions related to: (1) developing strategies for the prevention of flowing grain engulfments, (2) evaluation of commercial lifts used by operators with restricted mobility to gain access to agricultural tractors and equipment, and (3) identifying essential competencies for youth enrolled in federally mandated tractor and machinery certification programs. Advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of expert panels are addressed, and specific examples of outcomes are presented. Recommendations for using expert panels during research projects are also included.

Prominent barriers and motivators to installing ROPS: an analysis of survey responses from Pennsylvania and Vermont.

Tractor overturns contribute significantly to the number of work-related deaths that occur every year on U.S. farms. Although the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries have the highest fatality rates of any industries, researchers predict that the elimination of tractor overturn fatalities could result in a noticeable reduction in the farm fatality rate. Rollover protection structures (ROPS) are 99% effective in preventing overturn fatalities. However, roughly 50% of U.S. tractors do not have a ROPS. In order to identify prominent barriers and motivators to installing ROPS, a phone survey was conducted with a random sample of farmers (n = 327) in Vermont and Pennsylvania, two states interested in developing ROPS installation programs. Results indicated that cost and perceived need were the most frequently highly rated barriers to ROPS installation in both states, while working near hills or ditches and concerns regarding liability were the most frequently highly rated motivators for installing ROPS. Additionally, older farmers identified limited use of a tractor as a highly rated barrier.

Designing Tools and Agricultural Equipment for Women

The number of women farmers in the U.S. has been rising over the past several decades, with the rate of growth accelerating between the 2002 and 2007 Agricultural Censuses, to nearly 1 million female farm operators in 2007. Tools and equipment function best and are safest and easiest to operate when they fit the user. Tools designed for males will be less-than-optimal for the vast majority of female users. Additionally, some of women’s anatomical and physiological characteristics may place them at specific risk for farm injuries. Nonetheless, virtually all tools and equipment on the U.S. market have been designed either for men or for some “average” user whose size, weight, strength etc. were heavily influenced by the average man. This paper briefly summarizes the literature regarding women farmers and tool and equipment use and describes the engineering design process used to develop a hybrid spade / shovel appropriate for women users. Using a scientifically based design process to develop tools suitable for specific populations is both feasible and important. Gender-based anatomical and physiological differences limit the ability of universal design to adequately serve all populations. The availability and accessibility of anthropometric data; advances in ergonomics; and the utility of lab and field testing are key to the success of such design processes. Consumer input gathered at various stages of the design process – e.g., to establish need and priorities at the outset and to test prototype tools – is also critical. Lastly, a team approach to design has decided advantages.

National Safe Tractor and Machinery Operation Program: Development and Content Evaluation

Guidelines in the U.S. Department of Labors Hazardous Occupations Order in Agriculture (AgHO) regulations state that youth can receive tractor safety certification after participating in a 10-hour course, or receive tractor and machinery safety certification after participating in a 20-hour course. An additional four hours of orientation to on-farm hazards and general safety is required to receive full certification in a 24-hour course. Previous research has shown that traditional safety education certification programs were conducted with non-standardized methods and old curriculum materials. The objective of the National Safe Tractor and Machinery Operation Program (NSTMOP) project was to design an effective, efficient, and accountable youth farm machinery certification program with national uniformity and a single set of economically producible instructional materials with demonstrated content validity. The format for the NSTMOP project was guided by focus groups, a national steering committee, and selected agricultural safety educators. Primary curriculum materials include a task sheet format, and new skills and driving evaluations. Data analysis indicates that the instructional materials, the instructional plan, and the evaluation of student participants satisfactorily met the objectives of the NSTMOP project and the AgHO regulations.

A Proposed SAE Standard for Access Systems on Off-Road Machinery for Agricultural and Other Workers with Disabilities

It has been demonstrated that farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers have been able to remain productive following a disabling injury or disease through use of appropriate applications of assistive or rehabilitation technology. To help address the need for sound technical information in this area, Purdue University’s Breaking New Ground (BNG) Resource Center has taken a leadership role in developing and documenting modifications for off-highway agricultural equipment. Very little of the design criteria that could be considered by manufacturers in the fabrication and installation of these devices has been documented or adopted by standards organizations, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). Also, many of the small manufacturers who do fabricate and install these devices typically have neither the appropriate staff nor the resources to conduct adequate engineering assessments or hazard analyses of their products. Therefore, there is a need for establishment of standards regarding access systems on off-road machines for agricultural and other workers with limited mobility. Even though some standards exist for other forms of access systems, they do not directly state or imply that they should be used for individuals with limited mobility when accessing off-road machinery. The draft standard proposed here summarizes all relevant points of the existing related standards into one document that can be used by access system fabricators and prescribers. This proposed standard should be reviewed and considered for adoption by the Adaptive Standards Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.