Citation

Sorensen JA, May J, Ostby-Malling R, Lehmen T, Strand J, Stenlund H, Weinehall L, Einehall LW, Emmelin M. Scand. J. Public Health 2008; 36(8): 859-869.

Affiliation

New York Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health, Cooperstown, New York 13326, USA. jsorensen@nycamh.com

Erratum On

Scand J Public Health 2009;37(1):109

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Associations of Public Health in the Nordic Countries Regions, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1403494808089655

PMID

19004904

Abstract

AIMS: Increasing the percentage of rollover protective structure (ROPS) equipped tractors has been the focus of many agricultural safety campaigns. Traditionally efforts have attempted to persuade farmers through education or community awareness interventions. These efforts have lead to marginal change. In response, a social marketing approach was tested as a means for increasing interest in ROPS retrofitting in New York. METHODS: An initial phone survey was conducted with a random sample of New York farmers to identify a potential target population. Following target selection, in-depth interviews were conducted to isolate barriers and motivators to retrofitting. This information was used to develop message prototypes which were tested in small focus group discussions. Selected and revised messages, as well as various other incentives developed in response to feedback from interviews, were then tested in a prospective, quasi-randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: Small crop and livestock farms were selected as the intervention target since they represent 86% of New York farms with none or only one ROPS protected tractor. Barriers to retrofitting which were identified in interviews were: 1) constant exposures normalize risk, 2) risk is modeled by significant others and 3) safety in general and retrofitting in particular requires too much time and money. The piloting of ROPS incentives led to a marked increase in ROPS sales in New York. CONCLUSIONS: Social Marketing provides a promising framework for the design of agricultural injury prevention programs. The potential implications for other health initiatives seeking to promote behaviour change are also discussed.

Language: en