TY - GEN
T1 - Fatal agricultural injuries in Pennsylvania, 2015-2017
T2 - A comparative analysis of two systems’ data collection methods and datasets
AU - Gorucu, Serap
AU - Weichelt, Bryan
AU - Pate, Michael L.
N1 - Funding Information:
The research team acknowledges Dr. Dennis Murphy, Nationwide Insurance Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Safety and Health, for his insight and review of the manuscript. This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch Project 1015808), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Award No. U54-OH-009568), the Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, and the National Farm Medicine Center. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Pennsylvania State University, the National Farm Medicine Center, NIOSH, or the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 ASABE
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - The purpose of this study was to assess and compare 2015-2017 Pennsylvania agricultural fatal injury data and methods from two separate sources: the Pennsylvania Farm Fatality (PA-FF) dataset and the national AgInjuryNews (AIN) dataset. Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, a total of 104 agricultural fatalities were identified in Pennsylvania across both systems. Differences between the two systems included coding, such as victim age and demographics, as well as inclusion criteria, such as the time between the incident and victim death. Of the 104 agricultural fatalities, 73% were identified through the PA-FF dataset, and 53% were identified through the AIN dataset. AIN included a higher proportion of female victims and roadway incidents, whereas PA-FF included a significantly higher proportion of the identified Anabaptist cases (X2 = 22.329, df = 2, p < 0.001). Although PA-FF may have an advantage by including death certificates, this study revealed that PA-FF alone missed mortality data and certain risk factors, such as roadway fatalities related to farm equipment. When comparing two datasets, the inclusion criteria should be considered. Supplemental surveillance programs such as these would benefit from a periodic review between two or more datasets to ensure that agricultural fatalities are captured more accurately.
AB - The purpose of this study was to assess and compare 2015-2017 Pennsylvania agricultural fatal injury data and methods from two separate sources: the Pennsylvania Farm Fatality (PA-FF) dataset and the national AgInjuryNews (AIN) dataset. Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, a total of 104 agricultural fatalities were identified in Pennsylvania across both systems. Differences between the two systems included coding, such as victim age and demographics, as well as inclusion criteria, such as the time between the incident and victim death. Of the 104 agricultural fatalities, 73% were identified through the PA-FF dataset, and 53% were identified through the AIN dataset. AIN included a higher proportion of female victims and roadway incidents, whereas PA-FF included a significantly higher proportion of the identified Anabaptist cases (X2 = 22.329, df = 2, p < 0.001). Although PA-FF may have an advantage by including death certificates, this study revealed that PA-FF alone missed mortality data and certain risk factors, such as roadway fatalities related to farm equipment. When comparing two datasets, the inclusion criteria should be considered. Supplemental surveillance programs such as these would benefit from a periodic review between two or more datasets to ensure that agricultural fatalities are captured more accurately.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067377734&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067377734&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.13031/jash.13165
DO - 10.13031/jash.13165
M3 - Article
C2 - 32429608
AN - SCOPUS:85067377734
SN - 1074-7583
VL - 25
SP - 53
EP - 61
JO - Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
JF - Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
ER -
