ArticleJournal of agromedicine2018
Field Sanitation in U.S. Agriculture: Evidence from NAWS and Future Data Needs.
Article in Journal of agromedicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Federal Protections for Farmworker Health in the United States: A Scoping Review of Three Decades of Research.American journal of industrial medicine · 2026Review
- Mobile Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines to Migrant Farmworkers in Minnesota.Journal of agromedicine · 2024Article
- Pesticide exposure and the physical and economic health of US crop workers.Applied economic perspectives and policy · 2021Article
- Environmental Health Threats to Latino Migrant Farmworkers.Annual review of public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe studied relationships between demographic and work-related characteristics and exposure to health-related risk associated with field sanitation within the population of U.S. farmworkers while critically examining adequacy of existing data toward understanding patterns.
methodsWe used statistical and econometric large-sample data methods to analyze correlations between observable variables and access to field sanitation as measured by responses to the nationally and regionally representative National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS).
resultsAnalysis suggests that field sanitation risk is relatively low on U.S. farms, especially in the most current periods, though there is regional variation. A number of socioeconomic characteristics are predictive of remaining gaps in access to basic field sanitation. We found that men, workers with less education, workers who do not speak English well, and those from Mexico are systematically more likely to lack access to field sanitation than are other workers, all else equal. We also found associations with job-related characteristics.
conclusionWe conclude that regulatory standards do not affect all workers equally and that field sanitation risk for some workers has continued though the current period. Basic sanitation definitions provided in available data are limited and may not reflect the true extent of risk associated with the incomplete nature of field sanitation access. This motivates the importance of continued study of field sanitation and of targeted public policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.