This article was downloaded by: [Kainan University] On: 28 April 2015, At: 07:21 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uoeh20
Personal Protective Equipment Use and Hand Washing among Animal Farmers: A Multi-Site Assessment a
a
b
c
Nnaemeka U. Odo , Peter C. Raynor , Amanda Beaudoin , Ratana Somrongthong , Joni M. d
e
b
Scheftel , James G. Donahue & Jeffrey B. Bender a
School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
b
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
c
College of Public Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
d
Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
e
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA Accepted author version posted online: 27 Jan 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Nnaemeka U. Odo, Peter C. Raynor, Amanda Beaudoin, Ratana Somrongthong, Joni M. Scheftel, James G. Donahue & Jeffrey B. Bender (2015): Personal Protective Equipment Use and Hand Washing among Animal Farmers: A MultiSite Assessment, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1006635 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1006635
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Personal Protective Equipment Use and Hand Washing among Animal Farmers: A MultiSite Assessment
Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 07:21 28 April 2015
Nnaemeka U. Odo1, Peter C. Raynor1‡, Amanda Beaudoin2, Ratana Somrongthong3, Joni M. Scheftel4, James G. Donahue5, Jeffrey B. Bender2
1
2
School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA 3
College of Public Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 4
5
Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA
‡
Corresponding author: Peter C. Raynor, PhD Mailing Address: University of Minnesota Division of Environmental Health Sciences
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 807 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-625-7135 Email: [email protected] Key words/phrases: Personal protective equipment, hand washing, animal agriculture, influenza,
Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 07:21 28 April 2015
swine, poultry
Word Count: 3,235
ABSTRACT The goal of this study was to compare and contrast the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the practice of hand washing among participants of four studies assessing poultry and swine farms in the Midwest United States and in Thailand. This largely descriptive exercise was designed to assess and compare the frequency of these protective practices among the study populations. There were a total of 1,113 surveys analyzed across the four studies. The respondents included workers in direct contact with animals as well as flock owners and veterinarians tending to farms. Hand washing was the most common practice observed among all participants with 42% “always” and 35% “sometimes” washing their hands after contact with the animals. This practice was least common among Minnesota swine workers. Even Thai poultry farmers, who demonstrated the lowest overall PPE use, reported a higher frequency of hand
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT washing. Mask use during animal farming activities (“always” or “sometimes”) was least commonly practiced, ranging from 1% in Thailand to 26% among backyard poultry farmers in Minnesota. Minnesota poultry and swine farmers had similar frequencies of mask (26%) and glove use (51% and 49%). All other comparisons differed significantly across the four sites (pvalues half the time,” “half the time,” “< half the time,” or “never or almost never”. These categories were reassigned in the overall dataset with “always” and “never or almost never” recorded as “always” and “never,” respectively, and the remaining three categories recorded as “sometimes”. For the TPS, the frequencies of use of the protective practices were recorded as “never,” “hardly ever,” “sometimes,” “usually,” or “always” on the survey questionnaire. For the overall dataset, “never” and “hardly ever” were categorized as “never,” “sometimes,” and “usually” were recorded as “sometimes,” and “always” was recorded as “always” to match the rest of the dataset. Where multiple tasks were assessed in a study for a type of PPE, e.g., feeding, handling poultry or collecting eggs, the task reported as most frequently conducted was used as representative of the PPE use frequency for that respondent. A summary variable for PPE activity, called “overall PPE use,” was included in the dataset to indicate any use of PPE at the corresponding animal farm. This was either “ever” or “never” use, with “ever” being the use of at least one kind of PPE at least some of the time. Data Analysis
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Data analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC). From the four individual studies, 1,113 completed surveys were pooled together. The percentage of participants using the protective practices (“always,” “sometimes,” and “never”) was determined for all study groups and compared among the four groups. Comparisons were made by chi-square analyses or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Differences with a p-value
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uoeh20
Personal Protective Equipment Use and Hand Washing among Animal Farmers: A Multi-Site Assessment a
a
b
c
Nnaemeka U. Odo , Peter C. Raynor , Amanda Beaudoin , Ratana Somrongthong , Joni M. d
e
b
Scheftel , James G. Donahue & Jeffrey B. Bender a
School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
b
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
c
College of Public Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
d
Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
e
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA Accepted author version posted online: 27 Jan 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Nnaemeka U. Odo, Peter C. Raynor, Amanda Beaudoin, Ratana Somrongthong, Joni M. Scheftel, James G. Donahue & Jeffrey B. Bender (2015): Personal Protective Equipment Use and Hand Washing among Animal Farmers: A MultiSite Assessment, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1006635 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1006635
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Personal Protective Equipment Use and Hand Washing among Animal Farmers: A MultiSite Assessment
Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 07:21 28 April 2015
Nnaemeka U. Odo1, Peter C. Raynor1‡, Amanda Beaudoin2, Ratana Somrongthong3, Joni M. Scheftel4, James G. Donahue5, Jeffrey B. Bender2
1
2
School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA 3
College of Public Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 4
5
Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA
‡
Corresponding author: Peter C. Raynor, PhD Mailing Address: University of Minnesota Division of Environmental Health Sciences
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 807 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-625-7135 Email: [email protected] Key words/phrases: Personal protective equipment, hand washing, animal agriculture, influenza,
Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 07:21 28 April 2015
swine, poultry
Word Count: 3,235
ABSTRACT The goal of this study was to compare and contrast the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the practice of hand washing among participants of four studies assessing poultry and swine farms in the Midwest United States and in Thailand. This largely descriptive exercise was designed to assess and compare the frequency of these protective practices among the study populations. There were a total of 1,113 surveys analyzed across the four studies. The respondents included workers in direct contact with animals as well as flock owners and veterinarians tending to farms. Hand washing was the most common practice observed among all participants with 42% “always” and 35% “sometimes” washing their hands after contact with the animals. This practice was least common among Minnesota swine workers. Even Thai poultry farmers, who demonstrated the lowest overall PPE use, reported a higher frequency of hand
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT washing. Mask use during animal farming activities (“always” or “sometimes”) was least commonly practiced, ranging from 1% in Thailand to 26% among backyard poultry farmers in Minnesota. Minnesota poultry and swine farmers had similar frequencies of mask (26%) and glove use (51% and 49%). All other comparisons differed significantly across the four sites (pvalues half the time,” “half the time,” “< half the time,” or “never or almost never”. These categories were reassigned in the overall dataset with “always” and “never or almost never” recorded as “always” and “never,” respectively, and the remaining three categories recorded as “sometimes”. For the TPS, the frequencies of use of the protective practices were recorded as “never,” “hardly ever,” “sometimes,” “usually,” or “always” on the survey questionnaire. For the overall dataset, “never” and “hardly ever” were categorized as “never,” “sometimes,” and “usually” were recorded as “sometimes,” and “always” was recorded as “always” to match the rest of the dataset. Where multiple tasks were assessed in a study for a type of PPE, e.g., feeding, handling poultry or collecting eggs, the task reported as most frequently conducted was used as representative of the PPE use frequency for that respondent. A summary variable for PPE activity, called “overall PPE use,” was included in the dataset to indicate any use of PPE at the corresponding animal farm. This was either “ever” or “never” use, with “ever” being the use of at least one kind of PPE at least some of the time. Data Analysis
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Data analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC). From the four individual studies, 1,113 completed surveys were pooled together. The percentage of participants using the protective practices (“always,” “sometimes,” and “never”) was determined for all study groups and compared among the four groups. Comparisons were made by chi-square analyses or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Differences with a p-value
