Hayden G J, Gerberich S G, Maldonado G
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
J Occup Environ Med. 1995 May;37(5):571-7. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199505000-00004.
The agricultural industry has been ranked among the most hazardous. Yet, it has been alleged that occupational injuries and fatalities are seriously underreported. Access to quality agricultural injury data poses a special problem. The purpose of this study was to investigate the concordance of reporting of fatal agricultural injuries between death certificate data and the Newspaper Clipping Service data in the state of Minnesota, utilizing a surveillance system developed by the University of Minnesota. Between September 1, 1981, and August 31, 1986, a total of 350 agricultural fatalities were identified in Minnesota; 82% were identified through death certificate data and 67% through the Newspaper Clipping Service. Differences in reporting between the two data sources were noted for gender, age, injury type, anatomical site, source, mechanism of injury, and multiple versus single injury. If only death certificates had been utilized, 18% of the fatalities would have been missed. Although it is apparent that death certificate data have an advantage over the Newspaper Clipping Service data for fatality reporting of specific variables, this study revealed that death certificate surveillance alone will miss mortality data and detection of certain potential risk factors. Suggestions for improving surveillance of agricultural fatalities are identified. However, until relevant changes are made, it will be essential to use a combination of data sources that include the Newspaper Clipping Service to identify agricultural injury fatalities accurately.
农业产业被列为最危险的行业之一。然而，据称职业伤害和死亡事故的报告严重不足。获取高质量的农业伤害数据存在特殊问题。本研究的目的是利用明尼苏达大学开发的监测系统，调查明尼苏达州死亡证明数据和剪报服务数据在农业死亡事故报告方面的一致性。在1981年9月1日至1986年8月31日期间，明尼苏达州共确认了350起农业死亡事故；82%通过死亡证明数据确认，67%通过剪报服务确认。在性别、年龄、伤害类型、解剖部位、来源、伤害机制以及多处伤害与单一伤害等方面，注意到了两个数据来源在报告上的差异。如果仅使用死亡证明，18%的死亡事故将会遗漏。虽然显然在特定变量的死亡报告方面，死亡证明数据比剪报服务数据更具优势，但本研究表明，仅依靠死亡证明监测将会遗漏死亡率数据以及某些潜在风险因素的检测。确定了改进农业死亡事故监测的建议。然而，在进行相关更改之前，必须结合包括剪报服务在内的多种数据来源，以准确识别农业伤害死亡事故。
