Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30681969›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2019

Exposure to Pesticides and Health Effects on Farm Owners and Workers From Conventional and Organic Agricultural Farms in Costa Rica: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Study.

Samuel Fuhrimann, Mirko S Winkler, Philipp Staudacher, Frederik T Weiss, Christian Stamm, Rik Il Eggen, Christian H Lindh, José A Menezes-Filho, Joseph M Baker, Fernando Ramírez-Muñoz and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pesticides in soil, groundwater and food in Latin America as part of one health.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Samuel FuhrimannSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1861-1737
Mirko S WinklerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7387-3863
Philipp StaudacherSwiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8314-1519
Frederik T WeissSwiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5887-0960
Christian StammSwiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5888-6535
Rik Il EggenSwiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2593-9957
Christian H LindhDivision of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7435-9890
José A Menezes-FilhoLaboratory of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Federal University of Bahia, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3191-4484
Joseph M BakerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7295-6122
Fernando Ramírez-MuñozCentral American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances, Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0904-0204
Randall Gutiérrez-VargasCentro de Investigación y Diagnóstico en Salud y Deporte, Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4187-3484
Ana M MoraCentral American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances, Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2008-9714
ETH Zurich · CHUniversidad Nacional · CRLund University · SEStanford University · USSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CHUniversidade Federal da Bahia · BRUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPesticide use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including Costa Rica. This increase poses health risks to farm owners, farm workers, and communities living near agricultural farms.

objectiveWe aimed to examine the health effects associated with occupational pesticide exposure in farm owners and workers from conventional and organic smallholder farms in Costa Rica.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study involving 300 owners and workers from organic and conventional horticultural smallholder farms in Zarcero County, Costa Rica. During the baseline study visit, we administered a structured, tablet-based questionnaire to collect data on sociodemographic characteristics, pesticide exposure, and health conditions (eg, respiratory and allergic outcomes and acute pesticide intoxication symptoms) and administered a neurobehavioral test battery (eg, Finger Tapping Test and Purdue Pegboard); we measured blood pressure, anthropometry (height, weight, and waist circumference), and erythrocytic acetylcholinesterase activity and also collected urine samples. In addition, a functional neuroimaging assessment using near-infrared spectroscopy was conducted with a subset of 50 study participants. During the follow-up study visit (~2-4 weeks after the baseline), we administered participants a short questionnaire on recent pesticide exposure and farming practices and collected hair, toenail, and urine samples. Urine samples will be analyzed for various pesticide metabolites, whereas toenails and hair will be analyzed for manganese (Mn), a biomarker of exposure to Mn-containing fungicides. Self-reported pesticide exposure data will be used to develop exposure intensity scores using an exposure algorithm. Furthermore, exposure-outcome associations will be examined using linear and logistic mixed-effects regression models.

resultsFieldwork for our study was conducted between May 2016 and August 2016. In total, 113 farm owners and 187 workers from 9 organic and 83 conventional horticultural smallholder farms were enrolled. Data analyses are ongoing and expected to be published between 2019 and 2020.

conclusionsThis study is one of the first to examine differences in health effects due to pesticide exposure between farm owners and workers from organic and conventional smallholder farms in an LMIC. We expect that this study will provide critical data on farming practices, exposure pathways, and how occupational exposure to pesticides may affect farm owners and workers' health. Finally, we hope that this study will allow us to identify strategies to reduce pesticide exposure in farm owners and workers and will potentially lay the groundwork for a future longitudinal study of health outcomes in farm owners and workers exposed to pesticides. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/10914.

Indexed as

acetylcholinesteraseagricultureCosta Ricafarm workersnear-infrared spectroscopyneurobehavioral outcomespesticide exposure assessmentpesticidesrespiratory outcomes

Identifiers

PMID30681969
PMCPMC6367668
OpenAlexW2896628510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.