ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2019
More than time and money: A mixed-methods study of the barriers to safer cattle handling practices.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human-Animal Interactions withAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCattle are responsible for more injuries and fatalities than any farm animal, and cattle-related nonfatal injuries are some of the costliest, requiring more time off work than other injuries. Though research has improved our understanding of cattle behavior, developed low-stress handling practices, and determined how facilities can be safer, injury rates remain high. This project identified the types of equipment commonly used on farms and assessed farmer perceptions of safety and barriers to implementing changes.
methodsA mixed-methods design was used for this study. The study was comprised of a survey (N = 66) and four site visits conducted at operations focusing on different types of beef production in Iowa, United States. Information collected included descriptive characteristics of the operator and operation, tasks carried out on the farm, handling facility components and design, and incidents of handling-related injuries.
resultsMost farms indicated that they utilized equipment like alleyways, a manual headgate, a sorting/diverter gate, and a manual squeeze chute. Farmers cited the cost of equipment, lack of necessity (their setup worked well already), and lack of time as being the main reasons they have not implemented changes in their operations. However, qualitative responses provided additional details and nuance, illuminating farmers' anxieties related to farm transitions, knowledge, and trust of equipment sales personnel.
conclusionThis study provides health and safety professionals with additional details about why beef cattle producers may choose not to invest in safer handling equipment, even when they recognize the safety benefits of doing so.
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.