Medically Attended Suicidality in Youth Who Live on Farms.

Suicides are increasing in U.S. youth, particularly in rural areas. The influence of farming, however, is unclear, as suicide rates are higher in individual adult farm workers, but lower in farming-reliant counties. Early recognition of suicidality (suicidal ideation, intent, or attempt) is a key element of prevention, but there are no prior studies comparing suicidality in farm vs. non-farm youth. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between farm/rural residence and suicidality. Medical records were reused from an existing cohort of child and adolescent patients under surveillance for agricultural injuries in a Wisconsin healthcare system. The sample included 2,010 youth who lived on farms and 51,900 youth who did not live on farms (57% rural). The outcome was medically attended suicidality in 2017-2022 per a composite of diagnoses for suicidal ideation, attempt, or intentional self-harm that presented to ambulatory, emergency, or inpatient care settings. Suicidality was observed in 0.8% of farm, 1.8% of non-farm rural, and 1.6% of non-farm non-rural youth. After covariate adjustment, farm youth had significantly lower odds of suicidality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [95% confidence interval; CI] = 0.55 [0.33, 0.91], P = .019), while non-farm rural youth had significantly greater odds of suicidality (aOR [CI] = 1.21 [1.05, 1.40], P = .007), relative to non-farm non-rural youth. Children and adolescents who live on farms are about half as likely to (medically) present for suicidality as compared to their non-farm counterparts, both rural and non-rural. Future research should identify causal suicide protection factors in farm youth.

Regional surveillance of medically-attended farm-related injuries in children and adolescents.

Purpose: Due to numerous environmental hazards such as heavy machinery and large livestock, youth who live and work on farms are at high risk of injury, disability, and death. This study described a regional surveillance system for monitoring farm-related injuries in children and adolescents. As the risk of farm-related injuries are not exclusive to farm residents, trends in farm-related injuries over the previous 5 years were reported and compared between children/adolescents who did and did not live on farms in north-central Wisconsin. Methods: A retrospective cohort of child and adolescent patients of the Marshfield Clinic Health System was assembled. Incident farm-related injuries, including from agricultural work or other activities in a farm environment, were extracted from medical records from 2017 through 2021. Generalized linear models were created to compare age- and sex-adjusted farm-related injury rates by year. Results: There were 4,730 (5%) in-farm and 93,420 (95%) out-farm children and adolescents in the cohort. There were 65 incident farm-related injury cases in the in-farm group and 412 in the out-farm group. The annual incidence rate of farm-related injuries was higher in the in-farm group, but changes during the 5-year timeframe were not significant in either group. In the in-farm group, rates ranged from a high of 61.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 38.3, 94.5] incident farm-related injuries per 10,000 children/adolescents in 2017 to a low of 28.2 (13.5, 51.9) injuries per 10,000 children/adolescents in 2018. In the out-farm group, rates ranged from 10.7 (8.3, 13.6) to 16.8 (13.7, 20.5) incident farm-related injuries per 10,000 children/adolescents per year between 2017 and 2021. The in-farm group had a higher proportion of injured males and heavy machinery injuries, while the out-farm group had more all-terrain vehicle injuries and pesticide poisonings. Conclusion: Farm residency remains hazardous for children and adolescents, as injury rates were three times higher in the in-farm group and remained stable over 5 years. All-terrain vehicle injuries were high in both groups, and should be a priority in rural safety interventions. With additional adaptations to other states, this surveillance model could be scaled across other healthcare systems.

Facebook Ads Manager as a Recruitment Tool for a Health and Safety Survey of Farm Mothers: Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms have experienced unprecedented levels of growth and usage over the past decade, with Facebook hosting 2.7 billion active users worldwide, including over 200 million users in the United States. Facebook users have been underutilized and understudied by the academic community as a resource for participant recruitment. OBJECTIVE: We performed a pilot study to explore the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Facebook advertisements for the recruitment of an online agricultural health and safety survey. METHODS: We undertook a 1-week advertising campaign utilizing the integrated, targeted advertising platform of Facebook Ads Manager with a target-spending limit of US $294. We created and posted three advertisements depicting varying levels of agricultural safety adoption leading to a brief survey on farm demographics and safety attitudes. We targeted our advertisements toward farm mothers aged 21-50 years in the United States and determined cost-effectiveness and potential biases. No participant incentive was offered. RESULTS: We reached 40,024 users and gathered 318 advertisement clicks. Twenty-nine participants consented to the survey with 24 completions. Including personnel costs, the cost per completed survey was US $17.42. Compared to the distribution of female producers in the United States, our advertisements were unexpectedly overrepresented in the eastern United States and were underrepresented in the western United States. CONCLUSIONS: Facebook Ads Manager represents a potentially cost-effective and timely method to recruit participants for online health and safety research when targeting a specific population. However, social media recruitment mirrors traditional recruitment methods in its limitations, exhibiting geographic, response, and self-selection biases that need to be addressed.