Meredith David, Mohammadrezaei Mohammad, McNamara John, O'Hora Denis
Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland.
Teagasc-Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Head Office, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland; College of Health and Agricultural Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
J Agromedicine. 2023 Apr;28(2):239-253. doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2022.2113196. Epub 2022 Aug 19.
Occupational fatality rates are useful in communicating key safety challenges associated with different industries or affecting different populations within those industries. Though seemingly intuitive, the calculation and use of fatality rates associated with farming needs to be carefully considered. This paper highlights difficulties and variability in Farm Fatality Rate (FFR) measures, proposes a series of rates appropriate for assessments of farm safety, and demonstrates their usage through an analysis of farm workplace deaths in Ireland between 2008 and 2016.
Six FFRs are calculated including: the Farm Household Rate (FHR); Farm Operator Rate (FOR); Family Worker Rate (FWR), Worker Rate (WR), Seasonal Fatality Rate (SFR) and, Enterprise Fatality Rate (EFR). To assess trends over time we calculate the rate using appropriate numerators and denominators in three sub-periods.
FFRs vary considerably depending on which numerator and denominator are deployed. Over the period, the FHR, FOR, and FWR increased due to growth in the number of fatalities and a slight decrease in the denominator populations. The WR has declined substantially over the full period. The QFR increased substantially for Q2-Q4 whilst the EFR highlights workers on dairy or beef enterprises being particularly at risk.
The characteristics of farm workforces present many challenges to the calculation of occupational fatality rates. We propose six alternatives that provide insights into the risks faced by farm households, farm operators, farm workers, seasonally and by type of farm enterprise. We recommend that, regardless of the rate used, the limitations associated with all fatality rates are clearly explained, particularly when engaging with media and occupational health and safety stakeholders.
职业死亡率有助于传达与不同行业相关或影响这些行业内不同人群的关键安全挑战。虽然看似直观,但与农业相关的死亡率的计算和使用需要仔细考虑。本文强调了农场死亡率(FFR)衡量标准中的困难和变异性,提出了一系列适用于农场安全评估的比率,并通过对2008年至2016年爱尔兰农场工作场所死亡情况的分析展示了它们的用法。
计算了六种FFR,包括:农户率(FHR);农场经营者率(FOR);家庭工人率(FWR)、工人率(WR)、季节性死亡率(SFR)和企业死亡率(EFR)。为了评估随时间的趋势,我们在三个子时期使用适当的分子和分母计算比率。
FFR根据所采用的分子和分母的不同而有很大差异。在此期间,由于死亡人数增加以及分母人口略有减少,FHR、FOR和FWR有所上升。WR在整个时期大幅下降。第二季度至第四季度的QFR大幅上升,而EFR突出显示乳制品或牛肉企业的工人面临的风险尤其高。
农场劳动力的特征给职业死亡率的计算带来了许多挑战。我们提出了六种替代方法,以深入了解农户、农场经营者、农场工人、季节性工人以及不同类型农场企业所面临的风险。我们建议,无论使用何种比率,都要清楚地解释与所有死亡率相关的局限性,尤其是在与媒体以及职业健康与安全利益相关者接触时。