Cooling Interventions Among Agricultural Workers: A Pilot Study

Agricultural Worker Perspectives on Climate Hazards and Risk Reduction Strategies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of agricultural workers during periods of heat and wildfire smoke exposure and to support the development and implementation of protective workplace interventions.

METHODS

Using community-engaged research and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) framework for policy evaluation, a qualitative descriptive study was conducted with current and former agricultural workers in Central Washington (WA). Twelve participants answered semi-structured questions via interviews or by attending a focus group. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in Spanish, recorded, transcribed, and translated into English; one interview was conducted in English.

RESULTS

Using Braun and Clarke's Reflexive Thematic Analysis, five themes were identified among workers from various worksites: 1) Extreme weather and working conditions are becoming increasingly hazardous to worker health, 2) Employers and supervisors lack training and education on current labor laws, and health and safety rules, 3) Employers and supervisors use intimidation and retaliation to ensure productivity and to evoke feelings of replaceability among workers, 4) Workers do not trust regulatory agencies to enforce rules or hold employers accountable, 5) Solutions to climate-driven problems in the agricultural industry need to value worker health and safety, not just productivity. Participants reported experiencing adverse health symptoms related to heat and smoke exposure at work. Workers proposed solutions including improving education, training, and communication, and increased enforcement of existing and forthcoming occupational health and safety rules.

CONCLUSION

The agricultural workforce is essential for ensuring a robust food supply and is facing extreme weather events due to climate change. Western states impacted by wildfires and heat are working to develop and implement occupational health and safety rules. Developing effective policies and interventions inclusive of worker perspectives is critical to adapt to a changing climate, retain a stable workforce and promote optimal health.

Leveraging Implementation Science to Advance Environmental Justice Research and Achieve Health Equity through Neighborhood and Policy Interventions

Environmental justice research is increasingly focused on community-engaged, participatory investigations that test interventions to improve health. Such research is primed for the use of implementation science-informed approaches to optimize the uptake and use of interventions proven to be effective. This review identifies synergies between implementation science and environmental justice with the goal of advancing both disciplines. Specifically, the article synthesizes the literature on neighborhood-, community-, and policy-level interventions in environmental health that address underlying structural determinants (e.g., structural racism) and social determinants of health. Opportunities to facilitate and scale the equitable implementation of evidence-based environmental health interventions are highlighted, using urban greening as an illustrative example. An environmental justice-focused version of the implementation science subway is provided, which highlights these principles: Remember and Reflect, Restore and Reclaim, and Reinvest. The review concludes with existing gaps and future directions to advance the science of implementation to promote environmental justice.

The effect of the participatory heat education and awareness tools (HEAT) intervention on agricultural worker physiological heat strain: results from a parallel, comparison, group randomized study

BACKGROUND

Farmworkers are at risk of heat-related illness (HRI). We sought to: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of farmworker Spanish/English participatory heat education and a supervisor decision-support mobile application (HEAT intervention) on physiological heat strain; and 2) describe factors associated with HRI symptoms reporting.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel, comparison group intervention study from May-September of 2019 in Central/Eastern Washington State, USA. We used convenience sampling to recruit adult outdoor farmworkers and allocated participating crews to intervention (n = 37 participants) and alternative-training comparison (n = 38 participants) groups. We measured heat strain monthly using heart rate and estimated core body temperature to compute the maximum work-shift physiological strain index (PSImax) and assessed self-reported HRI symptoms using a weekly survey. Multivariable linear mixed effects models were used to assess associations of the HEAT intervention with PSImax, and bivariate mixed models were used to describe factors associated with HRI symptoms reported (0, 1, 2+ symptoms), with random effects for workers.

RESULTS

We observed larger decreases in PSImax in the intervention versus comparison group for higher work exertion levels (categorized as low, low/medium-low, and high effort), after adjustment for maximum work-shift ambient Heat Index (HImax), but this was not statistically significant (interaction - 0.91 for high versus low/medium-low effort, t = - 1.60, p = 0.11). We observed a higher PSImax with high versus low/medium-low effort (main effect 1.96, t = 3.81, p < 0.001) and a lower PSImax with older age (- 0.03, t = - 2.95, p = 0.004), after covariate adjustment. There was no clear relationship between PSImax and the number of HRI symptoms reported. Reporting more symptoms was associated with older age, higher HImax, 10+ years agricultural work, not being an H-2A guest worker, and walking > 3 min to get to the toilet at work.

CONCLUSIONS

Effort level should be addressed in heat management plans, for example through work/rest cycles, rotation, and pacing, in addition to education and other factors that influence heat stress. Both symptoms and indicators of physiological heat strain should be monitored, if possible, during periods of high heat stress to increase the sensitivity of early HRI detection and prevention. Structural barriers to HRI prevention must also be addressed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT04234802 , date first posted 21/01/2020.

Accuracy of an estimated core temperature algorithm for agricultural workers

There is a substantial burden of occupational health effects from heat exposure. We sought to assess the accuracy of estimated core body temperature (CBT_est) derived from an algorithm that uses sequential heart rate and initializing CBT,¹ compared with gastrointestinal temperature measured using more invasive ingestible sensors (CBT_gi), among outdoor agricultural workers. We analyzed CBT_est and CBT_gi data from Washington State, USA, pear and apple harvesters collected across one work shift in 2015 (13,413 observations, 35 participants) using Bland Altman methods. The mean (standard deviation, range) CBT_gi was 37.7 (0.4, 36.5-39.4)°C. Overall CBT bias (limits of agreement) was -0.14 (±0.76)°C. Biases ranged from -0.006 to -0.75 °C. The algorithm, which does not require the use of ingestible sensors, may be a practical tool in research among groups of workers for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to prevent adverse occupational heat health effects.

Using Occupational Histories to Assess Heat Exposure in Undocumented Workers Receiving Emergent Renal Dialysis in Georgia

BACKGROUND

Immigrants often work in jobs that are known as dirty, demanding, and dangerous. Globally, the agricultural occupations have been associated with the emergence of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) primarily in outdoor worker populations. The disease has also been reported in immigrants in the United States who work in agricultural occupations, but little research has been done outside of agricultural workers to determine whether immigrants who work other occupations are at risk for developing CKDu.

METHODS

This study assessed the self-reported occupational histories of undocumented immigrants receiving frequent, emergent-only dialysis in Atlanta, GA. We assessed demographics, employment status, and work history, using the Grady Dialysis Questionnaire and the Occupational/Environmental Health History Form.

RESULTS

Fifty undocumented immigrants receiving frequent, emergent-only hemodialysis were recruited for this study. The average age was 49.5 years (SD ± 11.5), and the majority (52%) were female and originated from Mexico (66%). A majority (74%) reported having worked in the past 5 years and 28% reported currently working. A total of 68 unique jobs were reported. In decreasing order of frequency, our sample worked in occupations with documented renal toxicant exposures, such as applying pesticides in landscaping, heat exposure in agriculture, construction, landscaping, and dry cleaning, and lead paint fumes in construction.

DISCUSSION

Occupational histories provide a greater understanding of the exposures and working conditions of those receiving frequent, emergent-only hemodialysis. This exploratory study suggests that further research is needed to investigate and assess whether renal toxicants are associated with occupations with high numbers of undocumented workers.

APPLICATION TO PRACTICE

A detailed and thorough occupational history should be conducted from those receiving frequent, emergent-only hemodialysis. Developing continuing education for nursing and medical staff in dialysis centers on taking an occupational history, mandatory State reporting requirements, and hazard communication training for workers should be considered. Collaborations between occupational health professionals, public health authorities, employers, dialysis providers, and clinicians who see undocumented workers is required to understand and develop appropriate prevention measures for this population.

Cooling Interventions Among Agricultural Workers: Qualitative Field-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

Agricultural workers perform intense labor outside in direct sunlight and in humid environmental conditions exposing them to a high risk of heat-related illness (HRI). To implement effective cooling interventions in occupational settings, it is important to consider workers' perceptions. To date, an analysis of agricultural workers' experience and perception of cooling devices used in the field while working has not been published.

METHODS

Qualitatively data from 61 agricultural workers provided details of their perceptions and experiences with cooling interventions.

RESULTS

The participants in the bandana group reported the bandana was practical to use at work and did not interfere with their work routine. Cooling vest group participants agreed that the vest was effective at cooling them, but the practicality of using the vest at work was met with mixed reviews.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this qualitative study support and extend existing research regarding personal cooling and heat prevention research interventions with vulnerable occupational groups. Personal cooling gear was well received and utilized by the agricultural workers. Sustainable heat prevention studies and governmental protection strategies for occupational heat stress are urgently needed to reduce the risk of heat-related morbidity, mortality, and projected climate change health impacts on outdoor workers.

The multi-level heat education and awareness tools [HEAT] intervention study for farmworkers: Rationale and methods

Background

The burden of adverse health effects from heat exposure is substantial, and outdoor workers who perform heavy physical work are at high risk. Though heat prevention interventions have been developed, studies have not yet systematically evaluated the effectiveness of approaches that address risk factors at multiple levels.

Objective

We sought to test the effectiveness of a multi-level heat prevention approach (heat education and awareness tools [HEAT]), which includes participatory training for outdoor agricultural workers that addresses individual and community factors and a heat awareness mobile application for agricultural supervisors that supports decisions about workplace heat prevention, in the Northwest United States.

Design

We designed the HEAT study as a parallel, comparison, randomized group intervention study that recruited workers and supervisors from agricultural workplaces. In intervention arm crews, workers received HEAT training, and supervisors received the HEAT awareness application. In comparison arm crews, workers were offered non-HEAT training. Primary outcomes were worker physiological heat strain and heat-related illness (HRI) symptoms. In both worker groups, we assessed HRI symptoms approximately weekly, and heat strain physiological monitoring was conducted at worksites approximately monthly, from June through August.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level heat prevention intervention on physiological heat strain and HRI symptoms for outdoor agricultural workers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT04234802;