↓ Skip to main content

Workplace Accident Prevalence and Associated Factors among Tobacco Farm in São Lourenço do Sul-RS, Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Workplace Accident Prevalence and Associated Factors among Tobacco Farm in São Lourenço do Sul-RS, Brazil
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, May 2018
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232018235.13172016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Marchon Zago, Rodrigo Dalke Meucci, Nadia Fiori, Maria Laura Vidal Carret, Neice Muller Xavier Faria, Anaclaudia Gastal Fassa

Abstract

Agriculture has the highest risk of accidents. In Brazil the reality of this situation is unknown owing to scarcity of studies and underreporting of workplace accidents in rural areas. This article aims to evaluate workplace accident prevalence and associated factors among tobacco farm in Sao Lourenco do Sul-RS, Brazil. Cross-sectional study with 488 tobacco farmers, assessing sociodemographic, behavioural, labour characteristics and association with workplace accidents occurring in their lifetime. The injury prevalence was 24%. Being male (PR 1.62; 95%CI 1.04-2.52), and tenant farmer (PR 1.87; 95%CI 1.29-2.72), bundling tobacco leaves (PR 2.00; 95%CI 1.14-3.52) and having minor psychiatric disorders (PR 1.58; 95%CI 1.06-2.35) were positively associated with accidents. 46% of serious injuries caused superficial lesions and 26% caused fractures. Rural workplace accident prevention policies need to be established, particularly for tobacco farming. Larger studies are needed to understand work process-related aspects that increase the risk of accidents.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,600,606
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#355
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,989
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#26
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.