Women in Agriculture: Risks for Occupational Injury within the Contexts of Role and Haddon’s Injury Model Carrie A. McCoy Northern Kentucky University.

Women in Agriculture: Risks for Occupational Injury within

the Contexts of Role and Haddon’s Injury Model

Carrie A. McCoyNorthern Kentucky University

Ann K. CarruthSoutheastern Louisiana University

Deborah B. ReedUniversity of Kentucky

Introduction

• Exposure to injury-producing events in the context of gendered role and Haddon’s Injury Model

• According to Haddon, injuries do not occur by accident (Haddon, 1968).

Haddon, 1968

Haddon’s Injury Model was used as the framework for this paper.

• Prevent

• Event

• Post Event

Host Agent Environment

Profile of Farm Women• 23.1% of farm operators and managers and 19%

of farm workers are female (Statistical Abstracts of U.S. 1998).

• Women operated 165,102 farms (8.6% of all farms) (USDA, 1999).– Over half list an occupation other than farming as

their principal occupation.

Profile of Farm Women

• Older on average than male counterparts• Operated smaller farms

– 43% less than 50 acres– 68.5% had sales less than $10,000

Women’s Contributions to Agriculture

• Invisible Farmers– invisibility of farm women’s work– gendered division of labor on the farm

• More daughters are entering farming

Role

• Managers• Taylor (1997)

– 41% husbands’ assistants– 34% silent partners– 22 hours working on farm

• Reed (1999) 46% homemakers engaged in farm work

Participation in Farm Tasks

• Conditioned by – individual self-identified role– self-efficacy

• Agricultural partners and producers more involved in farm tasks

Other Factors Affecting Participation in Farm Tasks

• Size of farm• Farm Commodity• Marital status• Control of land• Husband’s off farm work• Education level• Previous farming

experience

Injury Risk in Context of Host, Agent, Environment

• Pre-event exposure to multitude of biologic, chemical, physical, and mechanical agents

• Uncontrolled transfer of energy during event phase is dependent on host, catalyst (agent) that produces outcome, and the environment.

Host Risks for Injury-Social Cultural

• Role identity • Self-efficacy• Perceived vulnerability to injury• Knowledge and beliefs (Leckie,1996; Zeuli

& Levins 1995)

Host Risk for Injury Physical Factors

• Age• Physical stature• Physical health status• Use of medications• Fatigue and stress• May be more susceptible to some types of injuries

– Falls (Carruth et.al., 2001; Nordstrom et al., 1996; McCoy, 2000)

– Pronator syndrome (Stal, Hagert & Moritz, 1998)

Vehicle/Vectors of Injury

• Machinery– PTOs (MMWR, 1992; Roerig, 1993)– Design issues– Exposure (Carruth et al., 2001)

• Presence of large animals (Browning et al.; 1998; Carruth et al., 2001; McCoy 2000; Myers, et al., 1999; Steuland et al.; 1997)

Environmental Risks• Physical environment

– Risk of falls– Temperature extremes– Caring for animals

• Dairy farming - (Boyle et al., 1997; Nordstrom et al., 1995)

• Cultural environment– Cultural norms regarding division of labor– Economic pressures - third-shift phenomenon

Limitations

• Mostly descriptive in nature• Studies have focused on the injury event• Few studies have targeted women

– Most limited to one geographic area – Definition of injury inconsistent across studies– Selection criteria different across studies– Many based on hospital data

Limitations

• Injury in the context of role has not been addressed

• Inconsistent injury rates compared to men• Quantitative data with very little qualitative

triangulation.

Recommendations

• Examine relationship between host, agent and environment

• Focus on the pre-event phase• Examine roles and risk for occupational injury• Ergonomics and musculoskeletal injury• Improved links between quantitative and

qualitative (narrative) data.

Acknowledgements

• National Institute for Nursing Research, National Research Service Award

• Cooperative agreement with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.