Search

Background: Agricultural pesticide self-poisoning is a major public health problem in rural Asia. The use of safer household pesticide storage has been promoted to prevent deaths, but there is no evidence of effectiveness. We aimed to test the effectiveness of lockable household containers for prevention of pesticide self-poisoning., Methods: We did a community-based, cluster-randomised controlled trial in a rural area of North Central Province, Sri Lanka. Clusters of households were randomly assigned (1:1), with a sequence computer-generated by a minimisation process, to intervention or usual practice (control) groups. Intervention households that had farmed or had used or stored pesticide in the preceding agricultural season were given a lockable storage container. Further promotion of use of the containers was restricted to community posters and 6-monthly reminders during routine community meetings. The primary outcome was incidence of pesticide self-poisoning in people aged 14 years or older during 3 years of follow-up. Identification of outcome events was done by staff who were unaware of group allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT1146496., Findings: Between Dec 31, 2010, and Feb 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 90 rural villages to the intervention group and 90 to the control group. 27 091 households (114 168 individuals) in the intervention group and 26 291 households (109 693 individuals) in the control group consented to participate. 20 457 household pesticide storage containers were distributed. In individuals aged 14 years or older, 611 cases of pesticide self-poisoning had occurred by 3 years in the intervention group compared with 641 cases in the control group; incidence of pesticide self-poisoning did not differ between groups (293·3 per 100 000 person-years of follow-up in the intervention group vs 318·0 per 100 000 in the control group; rate ratio [RR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·80-1·08; p=0·33). We found no evidence of switching from pesticide self-poisoning to other forms of self-harm, with no significant difference in the number of fatal (82 in the intervention group vs 67 in the control group; RR 1·22, 0·88-1·68]) or non-fatal (1135 vs 1153; RR 0·97, 0·86-1·08) self-harm events involving all methods., Interpretation: We found no evidence that means reduction through improved household pesticide storage reduces pesticide self-poisoning. Other approaches, particularly removal of highly hazardous pesticides from agricultural practice, are likely to be more effective for suicide prevention in rural Asia., Funding: Wellcome Trust, with additional support from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Chief Scientist Office of Scotland, University of Copenhagen, and NHMRC Australia., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Pesticide self-poisoning is now considered one of the two most common methods of suicide worldwide. Encouraging safe storage of pesticides is one particular approach aimed at reducing pesticide self-poisoning. CropLife Sri Lanka (the local association of pesticide manufacturers), with the aid of the Department of Agriculture, distributed lockable in-house pesticide storage boxes free of charge to a farming community in a rural district of Sri Lanka. Padlocks were not provided with the boxes. These storage boxes were distributed to the farmers without prior education. The authors carried out a cross-sectional follow-up survey to assess the usage of boxes at 7 months after distribution. In an inspection of a sample of 239 box recipients' households, 142 households stored pesticides in the provided box at the time of survey. Among them, only 42 (42/142, 29.65%) households had locked the box; the remaining households (100/142, 70.4%) had not locked the box. A simple hand over of in-house pesticide storage boxes without awareness/education results in poor use of boxes. Additionally, providing in-house storage boxes may encourage farmers to store pesticides in and around houses and, if they are not locked, may lead to unplanned adverse effects.

Background: The WHO recognises pesticide poisoning to be the single most important means of suicide globally. Pesticide self-poisoning is a major public health and clinical problem in rural Asia, where it has led to case fatality ratios 20-30 times higher than self-poisoning in the developed world. One approach to reducing access to pesticides is for households to store pesticides in lockable "safe-storage" containers. However, before this approach can be promoted, evidence is required on its effectiveness and safety., Methods/design: A community-based cluster randomised controlled trial has been set up in 44,000 households in the North Central Province, Sri Lanka. A census is being performed, collecting baseline demographic data, socio-economic status, pesticide usage, self-harm and alcohol. Participating villages are then randomised and eligible households in the intervention arm given a lockable safe storage container for agrochemicals. The primary outcome will be incidence of pesticide self-poisoning over three years amongst individuals aged 14 years and over. 217,944 person years of follow-up are required in each arm to detect a 33% reduction in pesticide self-poisoning with 80% power at the 5% significance level. Secondary outcomes will include the incidence of all pesticide poisoning and total self-harm., Discussion: This paper describes a large effectiveness study of a community intervention to reduce the burden of intentional poisoning in rural Sri Lanka. The study builds on a strong partnership between provincial health services, local and international researchers, and local communities. We discuss issues in relation to randomisation and contamination, engaging control villages, the intervention, and strategies to improve adherence.

Background: Self-poisoning with pesticides is the cause of an estimated 300,000 deaths annually in rural Asia. The great majority of these deaths are from impulsive acts of self-harm using pesticides that are readily available in the home. The secure storage of pesticides under lock has been emphasized as a possible answer to the problem. This aspect, however, has been poorly researched. In this paper, we report on the design and use, in rural Sri Lanka, of a variety of different lockable storage devices., Methods: Following a baseline survey of pesticide storage practices, randomly selected households received a pesticide safe storage device. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase a total of 200 households in two villages were provided with in-house safe storage devices and two follow-up surveys were conducted seven and 24 months after distribution. The results of the seven month post-distribution survey have already been published. In the second phase, a further 168 households were selected in two additional villages and given a choice between an in-house and an in-field storage device and a follow-up survey conducted seven months after distribution. Both follow-up surveys aimed to assess the use of the device, obtain detailed user feedback on the different storage designs, and to identify problems faced with safeguarding the key. Twelve focus group discussions were held with representatives of households that received a storage device to derive from the community qualitative feedback on the design requirements for such devices., Results: One hundred and sixty one of the 200 households selected during the first phase were using pesticides at the time of the follow-up survey, 24 months after distribution. Of these 161 households 89 (55%) had the pesticides stored and locked in the provided device. Among the 168 households that were given a choice between an in-house and an in-field storage device 156 used pesticides at the time of survey and of these 103 (66%) selected in-field storage devices and 34% chose in-house storage devices. Of the 156 households, 106 (68%) stored all pesticides in a locked storage device at the time of the follow-up survey seven months after distribution. The majority of households that received an in-field storage device chose to install the device within their compound rather than in the field as they were concerned about the possibility of theft. The preferred design of the storage device was influenced by a number of occupational factors such as land size, crop patterns, types and the quantity of pesticides used. The presence of termites, perceived safety, material used to manufacture the device and ease of location influenced their choice. The study revealed that it was difficult to keep the key to the device hidden from children; and that the person in charge of the key would have easy access to the stored poison., Conclusion: This study confirms the high acceptance of lockable storage devices by the community although the use of the device reduced over time. A large proportion of pesticides stored within the compound after the introduction of the device may have implications for accessibility to pesticides in the domestic environment. The ability of other household members, including children, to easily find the key is also worrying.

Background: Acute poisoning by agricultural pesticides is a well established global public health problem. Keeping pesticides under safe storage is now promoted as a potential way to reduce the number of severe poisoning cases. However, there have been no published studies documenting the feasibility of such an approach. Therefore, the objective of the study presented here was to determine community perceptions and use of in-house safe storage boxes for pesticides in rural Sri Lanka., Methods: Boxes with a lock, to be used for the in-house safe storage of pesticides, were distributed to 200 randomly selected farming households in two agricultural communities. A baseline survey determined pesticide storage practices and household characteristics prior to distribution. The selected households were encouraged to make use of the box at community meetings and during a single visit to each household one month after distribution. No further encouragement was offered. A follow-up survey assessed storage practices seven months into the project., Results: Following the distribution of the boxes the community identified a number of benefits including the protection of pesticide containers against exposure from the rain and sun and a reduced risk of theft. Data were analysed for 172 households that reported agricultural use of pesticides at follow-up. Of these, 141 (82%) kept pesticides in the house under lock against 3 (2%) at baseline. As expected, the distribution of boxes significantly reduced the number of households storing pesticides in the field, from 79 (46%) at baseline to 4 (2%) at follow-up. There was a significant increase in the number of households keeping pesticides safe from children between baseline (64%) and seven months after the distribution of boxes (89%). The same was true for adults although less pronounced with 51% at baseline and 66% at follow-up., Conclusion: The farming community appreciated the storage boxes and made storage of pesticides safer, especially for children. It seems that additional, intensive promotion is needed to ensure that pesticide boxes are locked. The introduction of in-house safe storage boxes resulted in a shift of storage into the farmer's home and away from the field and this may increase the domestic risk of impulsive self-poisoning episodes. This increased risk needs attention in future safe storage promotion projects.