The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Practice article. Implementation of EPA's worker protection standard training for agricultural laborers: an evaluation using North Carolina data
Open accessAbstract
The US Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a Worker Protection Standard which requires that farmworkers receive pesticide safety training. The implementation of these regulations has not been evaluated. Using data collected through personal interviews with 270 Hispanic farmworkers recruited from 35 labor sites in an eight-county area, the authors analyzed the extent to which farmworkers received pesticide safety training, characteristics of the training, and variations in knowledge and safety behavior. Approximately a third of the farmworkers reported having ever received information or training on pesticide safety, and 25.6% reported having received training in the year in which they were interviewed. Workers with H2A visas were significantly more likely to have received training than workers without these visas. The training received varied in location, duration, and language. Most included the use of a video, as well as verbal presentation, and most included printed materials. However, few workers knew the ways in which they could be exposed to pesticides or reported using any method to protect themselves from pesticide exposure.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences
O'Fallon, L. R., & Dearry, A. (2002) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.02110s2155 · Cited by 604
“Consequently, researchers modified the intervention slightly by switching the order of the phases to improve worker awareness of health risks from pesticide exposure (24).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Arcury, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Arcury, T. A.
- ORCID
- Arcury, T. A.
- Venue
- Public Health Reports
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-09-01
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 459-468
- ISSN
- 0033-3549 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2877
- PMC
- PMC1308518
- OpenAlex
- W2211045443
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 7.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Public Health Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Labor
- University of California, Irvine
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R21ES008739, R21-ES08739)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Agriculture and Farm Safety
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Keywords
- Worker Protection Standard, pesticide safety training, agricultural laborers, farm workers, pesticide exposure, Hispanic farmworkers, pesticide safety knowledge, safety behavior, training implementation, North Carolina
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Agricultural Workers' Diseases, Emigration and Immigration, Female, Health Education, Humans, Male, Mexico, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Pesticides, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency
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