Arora Kanika, Cheyney Marsha, Gerr Fredric, Bhagianadh Divya, Gibbs Jenna, Anthony T Renée
J Agric Saf Health. 2020 Jan 20;26(1):45-58. doi: 10.13031/jash.13660.
There is limited research exploring agricultural workers' own perspectives on the relative importance of the hazards and stressors they experience. There is also a lack of evidence on whether this reporting differs by method of elicitation. Finally, very little research exists on how to improve mail survey response rates among agricultural workers. We examined health and safety concerns and psychological stressors among Midwestern farmers. We assessed whether these reports varied by survey mode (mail survey versus in-person survey). The efficacy of two different types of incentives to enhance mail survey response rates among agricultural workers was also investigated. In 2018, a needs assessment survey was developed and mailed to a random sample of farm owner-operators in Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri, with randomly assigned prepaid or promised monetary incentives. In-person surveys were conducted among farm owner-operators and hired workers at three regional farm shows in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The mail survey response rates were compared by incentive type. Content analysis was used to generate themes associated with health and safety concerns and psychological stressors, which were then ranked by frequency counts. Chi-square tests were used to analyze variation in the distribution of these themes by survey mode. The response rate for the $1 prepaid incentive was double that of the $10 promised incentive. Content analysis identified 13 health and safety concerns and eight psychological stressors. Chemicals, equipment/tools, and health outcomes were the most frequently noted health and safety concerns. Finances, climate/weather, and farm workload and management were the most frequently noted psychological stressors. Although there was considerable overlap in survey responses across mail and in-person respondents, important differences by sample and survey mode characteristics were observed. The results can support a variety of stakeholders in prioritizing and developing interventions and educational resources to address health and safety concerns and psychological stressors among Midwestern farmers. Our findings also contribute to the evidence base on primary data collection methods for agricultural workers.
关于农业工人对自身所经历的危害和压力源的相对重要性的看法，相关研究有限。也缺乏证据表明这种报告是否因引出方法的不同而有所差异。最后，关于如何提高农业工人邮件调查回复率的研究非常少。我们研究了中西部农民的健康与安全问题以及心理压力源。我们评估了这些报告是否因调查方式（邮件调查与面对面调查）而有所不同。还调查了两种不同类型的激励措施对提高农业工人邮件调查回复率的效果。2018年，我们开展了一项需求评估调查，并将其邮寄给爱荷华州、俄亥俄州和密苏里州的农场主兼经营者的随机样本，同时随机分配预付或承诺的货币激励措施。在爱荷华州、明尼苏达州和内布拉斯加州的三个地区性农场展览会上，对农场主兼经营者和雇佣工人进行了面对面调查。通过激励类型比较了邮件调查的回复率。采用内容分析法生成与健康和安全问题以及心理压力源相关的主题，然后按出现频率进行排序。使用卡方检验分析这些主题在不同调查方式下的分布差异。1美元预付激励措施的回复率是10美元承诺激励措施的两倍。内容分析确定了13个健康与安全问题和8个心理压力源。化学品、设备/工具和健康结果是最常被提及的健康与安全问题。财务、气候/天气以及农场工作量和管理是最常被提及的心理压力源。尽管邮件调查和面对面调查的受访者在调查回复上有相当多的重叠，但在样本和调查方式特征方面观察到了重要差异。这些结果可以支持各类利益相关者在确定优先事项以及制定干预措施和教育资源时，以解决中西部农民的健康与安全问题以及心理压力源。我们的研究结果也为农业工人主要数据收集方法的证据库做出了贡献。
