Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39963783›Full record

ArticleJournal of agromedicine2025

Agricultural Employer Perspectives on Occupational Wildfire Smoke Rules.

Molly Parker, Janessa M Graves, Lois James, Julie Postma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of agromedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Molly ParkerNursing, Gonzaga University School of Health Sciences, Spokane, Washington, USA.
Janessa M GravesFamily Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Lois JamesNursing and Systems Science, Washington State University College of Nursing, Spokane, Washington, USA.
Julie PostmaNursing and Systems Science, Washington State University College of Nursing, Spokane, Washington, USA.

Funding

Environmental Health Research Institute for Nurse and Clinician Scientists (EHRI-NCS)R25ES033452 · NIEHS · CASTNER INCORPORATED · PI CASTNER, JESSICA · 2021 to 2025
$1.0M
NIEHS NIH HHS R25 ES033452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of the study was to examine the perspectives of agricultural employers and managers regarding wildfire smoke-related occupational health and safety protections. The aims were to (1) explore implementation and evaluation of the Washington (WA) State Department of Labor and Industries Wildfire Smoke Rule, (2) develop a survey to explore perspectives on the rule, and (3) examine the relationship between occupational roles and knowledge and training received related to components of the rule.

methodsWe used exploratory sequential mixed methods, including key informant interviews with industry stakeholders, survey design, and online survey administration to agricultural employers and managers. Thematic analysis of interviews informed survey design. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze survey results.

resultsOur team interviewed seven agricultural industry stakeholders. Three themes were identified: (1) competing demands and regulation fatigue, (2) workplace attitude and culture, and (3) suggestions for rule implementation and evaluation. Themes and components of the smoke rule were used to develop the survey. Of the 128 survey respondents, almost half (45.1%) reported owner or grower as their role and 39.3% reported supervisors or managers. Over half (51.6%) of respondents reported fewer than 25 employees in their workplace and 17.2% reported 250 or more employees. Respondents were from multiple WA counties and worked with various crops. Most employers and workers they supervise reported wildfire smoke exposure at work and related adverse symptoms. Almost one-third of respondents reported they had not heard of the smoke rule (33.3%). Over half of respondents have not received training on managing workers with smoke-related symptoms (53.9%). About one-third has not received training on air quality monitoring (40.0%), health effects of exposure (36.8%), and implementing protective controls (31.0%). Differences in knowledge and training on rule components by occupational role were insignificant.

conclusionFindings identify gaps in awareness and training regarding protection from wildfire smoke in the agricultural workplace, especially around symptom recognition and management. Barriers to implementing protective controls in the workplace were identified. Findings will inform targeted outreach and educational toolkits for the agricultural industry and support the development and evaluation of protective occupational health rules.

Indexed as

AgricultureFarmersOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthSmokeWildfiresAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesWashingtonWorkplaceSmokeAgricultureclimate changeoccupational healthparticulate mattersurvey

Identifiers

PMID39963783
PMCPMC12163711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.