Paper · 2014 · Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health

Culturally Relevant Model Program to Prevent and Reduce Agricultural Injuries

Deborah L. Helitzer; Gary Hathorn; Jeannie Benally; et al.

2
claims
2
verbatim quotes
20
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Limited research has explored pesticide injury prevention among American Indian farmers. In a five-year agricultural intervention, a university-community partnership, including the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, New Mexico State University, Shiprock Area Cooperative Extension Service, and Navajo Nation communities, used a culturally relevant model to introduce and maintain safe use of integrated pest management techniques. We applied the Diffusion of Innovations theory and community-based approaches to tailor health promotion strategies for our intervention. In a longitudinal study with repeated measures, we trained six "model farmers" to be crop management experts in pesticide safety, application, and control. Subsequently, these model farmers worked with 120 farm families randomized into two groups: intervention (Group 1) and delayed intervention (Group 2). Measurements included a walk-through analysis, test of knowledge and attitudes, and yield analysis. Both groups demonstrated improvements in pesticide storage behaviors after training. Test scores regarding safety practices improved significantly: from 57.3 to 72.4 for Group 1 and from 52.6 to 76.3 for Group 2. Group 1 maintained their knowledge and safety practices after the intervention. Attitudes about pesticides and communication of viewpoints changed across the study years. With pesticides and fertilizer, the number of corn ears increased by 56.3% and yield (kg m(-2)) of alfalfa increased by 41.2%. The study combined traditional farming practices with culturally relevant approaches and behavior change theory to affect knowledge, safety practices, attitudes, communication channels, and crop yield. Storage behaviors, use of pesticides and safety and application equipment, and safety practice knowledge changed significantly, as did attitudes about social networking, social support, and the compatibility and relative advantage of pesticides for farms.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With pesticides and fertilizer, the number of corn ears increased by 56.3%.

Treatment
pesticides and fertilizere1
Outcome
number of corn earse1
Direction
increasede1
Value
56.3%e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“With pesticides and fertilizer, the number of corn ears increased by 56.3% and yield (kg m(-2)) of alfalfa increased by 41.2%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1370–1495 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With pesticides and fertilizer, alfalfa yield increased by 41.2%.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae1
Treatment
pesticides and fertilizere1
Outcome
yield (kg m(-2))e1
Direction
increasede1
Value
41.2%e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“With pesticides and fertilizer, the number of corn ears increased by 56.3% and yield (kg m(-2)) of alfalfa increased by 41.2%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1370–1495 · show in text ↑

insecticide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

25 papers: 17 positive, 8 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

162 papers: 137 positive, 25 negative or no effect

136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

158 papers more in this group

See all 162 papers →

insecticide · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

fertilization · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

184 papers: 151 positive, 33 negative or no effect

150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

180 papers more in this group

See all 184 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.