Cited by 0Agriculture and Farm SafetyAgricultural Development and ManagementMental Health Treatment and Access

AKIS actors as ‘accidental counsellors’ in the landscape of support for farmer mental health: a critical framework

Open access
Palczynski, Laura, Smith, Kreseda, Howse, Jennifer, Shaffer-Morrison, Dale, Rose, David Christian·2026·The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the opportunities and risks of widening the landscapes of support for farmers’ mental health by educating non-expert actors in agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS).Methods A survey (n = 162) of AKIS actors, including agronomists, contractors, health and safety consultants, and landlords’ agents. Mental health training was offered to 30 landlords’ agents and two contractors, with a pre-training survey (n = 26), a post-training survey (n = 15), and seven follow-up interviews of those trained.Findings Our paper shows that AKIS actors are not experts in mental health but may act as ‘accidental counsellors’, which, in turn, causes secondary trauma. The ability of AKIS actors to support farmers’ mental health is influenced by knowledge, relationships, and personal norms, community embeddedness, experience and seniority, and sometimes, conflicts of interest. AKIS actors also need support themselves.Practical implications Our paper illustrates the value of educating AKIS actors to support farmers’ mental health, as well as the support and guidelines these actors need to feel supported themselves. We provide evidence to policy-makers on the limitations of relying on non-experts to support farmers’ mental health.Theoretical implications Constructs an extensive critical framework that explores the role, opportunities, and risks of AKIS actors performing a support role for farmers’ mental health.Originality/value Our critical framework brings to the fore previously unidentified issues, such as conflicts of interest and the need to critically evaluate the role of so-called ‘accidental counsellors’.

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 · 10.1080/1389224x.2026.2726161

Cites

57 of 57 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

Still being checked.

Authors
Palczynski, L., Smith, K., Howse, J., Shaffer-Morrison, D., & Rose, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Harper Adams University (GB)
  • Royal Agricultural University (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Rose, David Christian
Venue
The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Published
2026-09-29
Pages
1-27
ISSN
  • 1389-224X (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-8622
OpenAlex
W7214713044
Cited by
0
References
57
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Mates in Mind
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agriculture and Farm Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
agricultural knowledge and innovation systems, farmer mental health, mental health support, agricultural extension, farmer well-being

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