Search

Introduction: The psychological response to injury is an important factor in recovery, and the development of psychological problems can result in a delay or inability to return to pre-injury function, including return to work. Farming is widely acknowledged as a stressful occupation, with non-injured farmers already at an increased risk of developing significant psychological problems, including high levels of stress and depression, and increased rates of suicide. This study aimed to investigate the psychological effects of serious farm-related injury on farmers, and how this influences their recovery., Methods: This was a qualitative study of 31 farmers in the state of Victoria, Australia, who sustained major trauma between 2007 and 2013. Participants were identified using the Victorian State Trauma Registry and underwent an in-depth, semi-structured telephone interview. Recruitment continued until data saturation was achieved, and thematic analysis was used to identify important themes from the data., Results: For many farmers, the traumatic circumstances and ongoing impact of their injury are life-changing. In this study, the psychological effects of sustaining a major farm-related injury varied between participants; however, four major interconnected themes were identified: importance of a pragmatic outlook; grief, helplessness and loss of independence; traumatic thoughts post-injury; and the importance of the support network and community. The findings of this study highlight both a reluctance for psychological assistance as well as the importance of psychological resilience and support networks to recovery., Conclusion: Overall, a positive outlook was found to be the primary enabler in the farmers' recovery. It is recommended that injured farmers should be provided with additional psychological support and advice to aid in their recovery. Additionally, psychological support services should be extended to include both the family network and the broader farming community, as these were found to experience significant short- and long-term stress following farmers' injury.

Background: Populations in agricultural communities require health care that is interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral to address the high rate of workplace deaths, preventable injuries and illness. These rates are compounded by limited access to services and the distinctive personal values and culture of farming populations, which both health and rural practitioners must be aware of to reduce the gap between rural and urban population health outcomes. To address the unique health and medical characteristics of agricultural populations, education in agricultural medicine was established through the College of Medicine and the College of Public Health at the University of Iowa in the USA. The course was initially developed in 1974 for teaching medical students, family medicine residents and nurses, and a postgraduate curriculum was added in 2006 to develop medical/health and rural professionals' cultural competence to work in agricultural communities. This article reviews the adaptation of the US course to Australia and the educational and practice outcomes of students who completed the agricultural medicine course in either Australia or the USA., Methods: Data were collected from students who completed either the Agricultural Medicine: Occupational and Environmental Health for Rural Health Professionals course in the state of Iowa in the USA or the Agricultural Health and Medicine course in the state of Victoria in Australia between 2010 and 2013 (inclusive). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, frequencies and the χ2 test. Students were invited to make any other comments regarding the course., Results: One hundred and ten students completed the survey (59 from the USA and 51 from Australia) with over a 50% response from both countries, indicating the high level of commitment to this discipline. Responses were consistent across both continents, with more than 91% agreeing that the course improved their abilities to diagnose, prevent and treat rural and agricultural populations. Further, both courses successfully enabled a multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach to agricultural health and medicine., Conclusions: More than 72% of previous students were practising in rural and /or mixed communities at the time of the survey, demonstrating a repeatable and transferable medical education program that supports multidisciplinary care and scholarship while addressing health inequities in agricultural populations. Findings from this study indicate there are opportunities to expand globally.

Introduction: Australia's farmers constitute a heterogeneous group within the rural population. This literature review incorporates four broad areas: an understanding of farming communities, families and individuals and the contexts in which they live and work; an exploration of the challenges to morbidity and mortality that these communities face; a description of the patterns of suicide and accidental death in farming communities; and an outline of what is missing from the current body of research. Recommendations will be made on how these gaps may be addressed., Methods: In developing this comprehensive literature review, a snowballing and saturation approach was adopted. Initial search terms included suicid*, farm*, accident*, fatal*, death, sudden death, rural OR remote, Australia and NOT Australia. Databases searched included SCOPUS, PubMed, Proquest and SafetyLit; research from 1995 onwards was examined for relevance. Earlier seminal texts were also included. Reference lists of retrieved articles were searched and citations explored for further relevant research material. The primary focus was on Australian peer-reviewed research with supplementary grey literature. International material was used as examples., Results: The literature variously describes farmers as members of both rural farming communities and farming families, and as individuals within an occupational classification. Within each of these classifications, there is evidence of the cumulative impact of a multiplicity of social, geographical and psychological factors relating to work, living and social arrangements that impact the health and wellbeing of Australia's farmers and their families, particularly accidental death and suicide. Research consistently demonstrates traumatic death to be at a greater rate than in the general Australian population, with reductions found more recently in some modes of farming-related accidental death. Patterns of accidental death and suicide are commonly linked to the changing shape of contemporary farming. Suicide rates are also frequently described in relation to lethality and accessibility of means. The limitations of suicide and accidental death data are considerable., Conclusion: While there is consistent reporting of heightened levels of risk for suicide and accidental death in farming communities the limitations of the research remain significant. There are substantial gaps in current knowledge, and the body of research to date lacks clarity, inclusiveness and contextual specificity. Absent from the literature is any investigation of the impact of these frequently preventable deaths on the families and communities in which they occur. Recommendations for future research are suggested.

Introduction: Farm health and safety has historically focussed on strategies such as injury prevention, safety audits and fulfilling legislative responsibilities. However, farmer injuries mask deeper health issues including higher rates of cancer, suicides, cardiovascular disease and stress. The relationship between occupational health and safety and farm family health has not been fully investigated. The Sustainable Farm Families (SFF) project attempts to make this connection in order to address premature death, morbidity and injury on Australian farms. The SFF project illustrates how increasing health literacy through education and physical assessment can lead to improved health and knowledge outcomes for farm families., Methods: The SFF project focuses on the human resource in the triple bottom line and is working with farmers, families, industry and universities to collaboratively assess and promote improvement in the health and wellbeing of farm families. Based on a model of extension that engages farm families as active learners where they commit to healthy living and safe working practices, the SFF project is proving to be an effective model for engaging communities in learning and change. Health education and information is delivered to farm men and women aged 18 to 75 years using a workshop format. Pre- and post-knowledge surveys, annual physical assessments and focus group discussions form the methodological context for the research over a three-year intervention., Results: This article discusses the progress of the research outlining the design of the SFF project, the delivery and extension processes used to engage 321 farm families from within a broadacre and dairy-farming family sample. The article presents key learnings on intersectoral collaboration, engaging farmers and families in health, and the future for this project extending into agricultural industries across the nation. Key results reveal that health issues do exist in farming families and are often underreported by family members. Health indicators were at a level where referral and intervention was required in over 60% of men and 70% of women in bothbroad acre and dairy industries. Farm men and women verbalised health concerns relating to access, support and control mechanisms of the health system. Participants also revealed how they put into practice their new knowledge and how this has influenced their health., Conclusions: The key learning is that farm men and women who are at high risk of premature morbidity and mortality will participate in health education and assessment programs based on industry collaboration with high levels of individual participation. This program provides evidence that farmers will engage with health professionals if programs are presented to them in personally engaging and relevant ways. The SFF program is a definite tool for interventional health promotion that supports attitudinal change to health and farming practices.