Cited by 3Agriculture and Farm SafetyStress and Burnout ResearchMental Health Treatment and Access

Identifying stressors and coping resources among Austrian farmers: A mixed-methods study for targeted prevention and health promotion

Open access
Schaffler, Yvonne, Fazekas, Viktoria, Neubauer, Viktoria, Humer, Elke·2026·Preventive Medicine Reports

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Farmers face elevated mental health risks due to complex occupational stressors. This study examines subjectively perceived burdens and coping resources among Austrian farmers to inform targeted prevention. METHODS: An anonymous online survey conducted in Austria (October 2024-February 2025) included a sample of 2006 farmers. Two open-ended questions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify categories of burdens and coping resources. These were subsequently analyzed using multivariable binary logistic regression models with sociodemographic, occupational, and mental health variables as predictors. RESULTS: Farmers reported a multifaceted stress experience, with professional (36.3%) and financial burdens (21.1%) most frequently mentioned. Social contacts (30.9%) and personal resources and competencies (19.6%) emerged as the main coping resources. Regression analyses revealed distinct risk and coping profiles: professional burdens were associated with higher age and anxiety symptoms, while familial and interpersonal burdens were more likely among women, younger farmers, and those with depression or problematic alcohol use. Notably, reporting no coping resources was associated with older age and clinically relevant anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide an evidence base for targeted, multi-level preventive interventions aimed at reducing mental health risks and strengthening coping resources in agricultural populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pmedr.2026.103475

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schaffler, Y., Fazekas, V., Neubauer, V., & Humer, E.
Affiliations
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Humer, Elke
Venue
Preventive Medicine Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-06
Volume
66
Pages
103475
ISSN
2211-3355 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7154450855
Cited by
0
References
25
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agriculture and Farm Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
farmers, occupational stress, mental health, coping resources, perceived burden, financial stress, social isolation, anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse, gender differences, prevention, health promotion, agricultural workforce

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review