Factors Related to Self-perceived Health in Rural Men and Women.

This study examined self-perceived health status among men and women who live on farms, as well as variations in factors related to negative health status observed by gender. Data were collected in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2013 through the use of a cross-sectional survey. A multistage sample was developed consisting of farms nested within rural municipalities and then agricultural soil zones. The response rate was 48.8% at the farm level, with a final sample of 2,353 (1,416 men, 937 women) from 1,119 farms. Variables under study included self-reports of health status, as well as demographic, behavioral, and farm operational factors that could influence perceived health status. The analysis was initially descriptive followed by multilevel logistic regression analyses. Self-reports of diagnosed comorbidities were strongly associated with negative health status among both men and women. Daytime sleepiness was more modestly associated with negative health status in both genders. Among men, additional risk factors tended to be functional, and included older age, part-time work status, and binge drinking. Among women, additional risk factors included cigarette smoking, overweight or obesity, and lower levels of education. The study demonstrated that there were both similarities and differences between men and women on farms in the factors related to negative self-perceived health status. These findings should inform the content and targeting of health promotion programs aimed at rural populations.

Determinants of agricultural injury: a novel application of population health theory.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To apply novel population health theory to the modelling of injury experiences in one particular research context. (2) To enhance understanding of the conditions and practices that lead to farm injury. DESIGN: Prospective, cohort study conducted over 2 years (2007-09). SETTING: 50 rural municipalities in the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada. SUBJECTS: 5038 participants from 2169 Saskatchewan farms, contributing 10,092 person-years of follow-up. MAIN MEASURES: Individual exposure: self-reported times involved in farm work. Contextual factors: scaled measures describe socioeconomic, physical, and cultural farm environments. OUTCOME: time to first self-reported farm injury. RESULTS: 450 farm injuries were reported for 370 individuals on 338 farms over 2 years of follow-up. Times involved in farm work were strongly and consistently related to time to first injury event, with strong monotonic increases in risk observed between none, part-time, and full-time work hour categories. Relationships between farm work hours and time to first injury were not modified by the contextual factors. Respondents reporting high versus low levels of physical farm hazards at baseline experienced increased risks for farm injury on follow-up (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Based on study findings, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the application of population health theory to the study of farm injury aetiology. Injury prevention efforts should continue to focus on: (1) sound occupational health and safety practices associated with long work hours; (2) physical risks and hazards on farms.

Application of novel communication technologies to the study of farm families: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different communication technologies for collection of health outcomes from farm households. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in central Saskatchewan, Canada in 2006. The 94 farms completing the baseline questionnaire were randomly assigned to follow-up by regular mail (n=30), computer telephony (n=32), or their choice of regular mail, computer telephony, or e-mail follow-up (n=32). The primary endpoints were absolute differences in the proportions of farms using the assigned method to provide follow-up data, 2 months post-recruitment. RESULTS: Of the total study population, 51 (54.3%) provided follow-up information. Farms in the regular mail arm were more likely to submit follow-up data than farms in the other arms (27/30 regular mail vs. 23/32 choice vs. 2/32 computer telephony). The differences in proportions between the computer telephony and other study arms were highly significant (e.g., absolute difference between regular mail and computer telephony 83.7% [95% CI: 70.1%, 97.3%; p<0.001]). CONCLUSION: The optimal method for health outcome data collection from farm households in our study is regular mail. Despite their novelty and attractiveness, caution is warranted when adopting modern communication technologies in population health research.