Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42544819›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of industrial medicine2026

Federal Protections for Farmworker Health in the United States: A Scoping Review of Three Decades of Research.

Kaitlyn Alvarez Noli, Stephane Labossiere, Becca Berkey, Joseph G Grzywacz

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of industrial medicine, 2026. 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.

Kaitlyn Alvarez NoliSchool of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0813-5220
Stephane LabossiereSchool of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7357-1766
Becca BerkeyCommunity-Engaged Teaching & Research, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3069-5750
Joseph G GrzywaczCollege of Health and Human Sciences, San José State University, San José, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2308-7781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis scoping review characterizes the scope, methods, and framing of empirical research evaluating the Field Sanitation Standard (FSS) and Worker Protection Standard (WPS) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Labor respectively.

methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we identified empirical studies (1990-2024) assessing elements of either the FSS or WPS. Two reviewers screened and extracted study characteristics, designs, populations, and regulatory elements. Framing analysis of 1226 segments, identified using a large language model, from the studies' abstracts and introductions examined how authors conceptualized farmworkers' need for protection.

resultsForty studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies concentrated in the Atlantic Southeast, and the vast majority (> 80%) used cross-sectional designs. Most (75%) focused on the WPS, primarily pesticide-safety training, while the FSS was less studied. Ten frames emerged; the most common were behavioral intervention (83%), regulatory inadequacy (75%), and structural vulnerability (65%).

conclusionsEvaluation of WPS and FSS effectiveness is fragmented: geographically concentrated, episodically timed, and predominantly descriptive. These limitations hinder impact assessment. The 2018 EPA Office of Inspector General recommendation for systematic WPS evaluation remains unmet. Sustained federal investment in rigorous, longitudinal evaluation, covering both the WPS and FSS, is needed to ensure the policies' objectives, the protection of farmworker health, are met.

Indexed as

FarmersOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthSanitationAgricultureHumansPesticidesUnited StatesUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyWorking ConditionsPesticidesagricultural workersenvironmental exposureoccupational exposurepesticide poisoningWorker Protection Standard

Identifiers

PMID42544819
PMCPMC13649954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.