Aswathi Surendran, Jennifer McSharry, Rossella Di Domenico, David Meredith, Oonagh Meade, Sandra Malone, Denis O'Hora
{"title":"Deconstruction of farm machine-related safety interventions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.","authors":"Aswathi Surendran, Jennifer McSharry, Rossella Di Domenico, David Meredith, Oonagh Meade, Sandra Malone, Denis O'Hora","doi":"10.1093/annweh/wxae105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Agricultural workplaces have a high number of incidents and fatalities, with the majority occurring from machinery use. Farmers' behaviour plays a critical role in maintaining safety, as improper or unsafe practices often lead to injuries and fatalities. This review categorises interventions targeting farm machine safety, examining both the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used and their reported outcomes to understand how the techniques influence safety practices and outcomes on farms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review is reported in accordance with the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant studies published before June 2024, and the quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Analysis of intervention behavioural components was guided by the behaviour change wheel framework and BCT taxonomy (v1). The findings were synthesised using a narrative review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies were included and a total of 21 BCTs were identified. The most frequently coded BCTs were 4.1 (instruction on how to perform the behaviour), 10.8 (incentive [outcome]), and 16.3 (vicarious consequences) (each n = 6). Reported outcomes included reductions in injury rates, improved adoption of safety devices, implementation of safety measures, and positive shifts in safety norms and perceptions. However, due to variations in intervention design and reporting, assessing the direct impact of specific BCTs on these outcomes proved challenging.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The use of BCT taxonomy provided a common language for describing intervention components and enabled the standardisation of intervention content analysis. While patterns were observed regarding the commonly used BCTs, their implementation and outcomes, the heterogeneity and limited details provided by studies limited our ability to discern their effectiveness. Providing (i) greater transparency in reporting active intervention components and (ii) clearer connections between components and specific outcomes, will enable enhanced comparisons of future studies, and facilitate a greater understanding of how to support safe machine-related behaviours on farms.</p>","PeriodicalId":8362,"journal":{"name":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxae105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Agricultural workplaces have a high number of incidents and fatalities, with the majority occurring from machinery use. Farmers' behaviour plays a critical role in maintaining safety, as improper or unsafe practices often lead to injuries and fatalities. This review categorises interventions targeting farm machine safety, examining both the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used and their reported outcomes to understand how the techniques influence safety practices and outcomes on farms.
Methods: The systematic review is reported in accordance with the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant studies published before June 2024, and the quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Analysis of intervention behavioural components was guided by the behaviour change wheel framework and BCT taxonomy (v1). The findings were synthesised using a narrative review.
Results: Nine studies were included and a total of 21 BCTs were identified. The most frequently coded BCTs were 4.1 (instruction on how to perform the behaviour), 10.8 (incentive [outcome]), and 16.3 (vicarious consequences) (each n = 6). Reported outcomes included reductions in injury rates, improved adoption of safety devices, implementation of safety measures, and positive shifts in safety norms and perceptions. However, due to variations in intervention design and reporting, assessing the direct impact of specific BCTs on these outcomes proved challenging.
Discussion: The use of BCT taxonomy provided a common language for describing intervention components and enabled the standardisation of intervention content analysis. While patterns were observed regarding the commonly used BCTs, their implementation and outcomes, the heterogeneity and limited details provided by studies limited our ability to discern their effectiveness. Providing (i) greater transparency in reporting active intervention components and (ii) clearer connections between components and specific outcomes, will enable enhanced comparisons of future studies, and facilitate a greater understanding of how to support safe machine-related behaviours on farms.
期刊介绍：
About the Journal
Annals of Work Exposures and Health is dedicated to presenting advances in exposure science supporting the recognition, quantification, and control of exposures at work, and epidemiological studies on their effects on human health and well-being. A key question we apply to submission is, "Is this paper going to help readers better understand, quantify, and control conditions at work that adversely or positively affect health and well-being?"
We are interested in high quality scientific research addressing:
the quantification of work exposures, including chemical, biological, physical, biomechanical, and psychosocial, and the elements of work organization giving rise to such exposures;
the relationship between these exposures and the acute and chronic health consequences for those exposed and their families and communities;
populations at special risk of work-related exposures including women, under-represented minorities, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups such as temporary, contingent and informal sector workers;
the effectiveness of interventions addressing exposure and risk including production technologies, work process engineering, and personal protective systems;
policies and management approaches to reduce risk and improve health and well-being among workers, their families or communities;
methodologies and mechanisms that underlie the quantification and/or control of exposure and risk.
There is heavy pressure on space in the journal, and the above interests mean that we do not usually publish papers that simply report local conditions without generalizable results. We are also unlikely to publish reports on human health and well-being without information on the work exposure characteristics giving rise to the effects. We particularly welcome contributions from scientists based in, or addressing conditions in, developing economies that fall within the above scope.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
