Prevalence and Determinants of Sinus Problems in Farm and Non-Farm Populations of Rural Saskatchewan, Canada

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Canadian Institutes of Health Research - MOP-187209-POP-CCAA-11829Peer ReviewedAlthough sinus problems have long been recognized as the most common respiratory symptoms associated with agricultural work, there is a scarcity of recent studies and/or reliable estimates as to the true prevalence or risk factors of sinus problems related to farming. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of sinus problems in farming and non-farming rural populations and further investigate the association of individual (for example life-style, occupational), contextual (e.g., environmental), and important covariates (e.g., age, sex) with sinus problems. A large-scale cross-sectional study was conducted in farm and non-farm residents of rural Saskatchewan, Canada. A logistic regression model based on a generalized estimating equations approach were fitted to investigate the risk factors of sinus problems. Sinus problems were reported by 2755 (34.0%) of the 8101 subjects. Farm residents were more likely to spend their first year of life on farm compared with non-farm residents, and indicated a significantly lower risk of sinus problems. Meanwhile, occupational exposure to solvent and mold were associated with an increased risk of sinus problems. Some health conditions such as allergy and stomach acidity/reflux, family history, and female sex were also related to a higher risk of sinus problems. Farm residents had a significantly lower risk of sinus problems than non-farm residents, likely due to the exposure to farm specific environments in their early life

Mise en garde : les études de médecine peuvent mettre la santé mentale des apprenants à rude épreuve. Les étudiants en médecine doivent pouvoir faire le choix d’entamer et de poursuivre leur formation en connaissance de cause

For decades there has been ample evidence that training to become a physician and practicing medicine is hazardous to one’s health and wellness. In the face of the extremely high rates of suicide, substance abuse, depression and burnout in the medical student, resident, and physician populations, it would be dishonest to suggest medical education and practice is all gain and no pain. This article is directed to members of the medical education community and challenges stakeholders to view their teaching and training of medical students as an intervention requiring free and informed consent. We hope this exercise shifts the paradigm of educators and enables students to enter medical training from a free and informed position. Depuis des décennies, il existe amplement de preuves à l’effet que la formation t et la pratique de la médecine peuvent compromettre la santé et le bien-être de la personne. Face aux taux extrêmement élevés de suicide, de toxicomanie, de dépression et d’épuisement professionnel tant chez les étudiants, les résidents que les médecins, il serait faux de prétendre qu’on est ou qu’on devient médecin sans faire de sacrifice. Cet article s’adresse aux acteurs du milieu de l’éducation médicale pour les inciter à considérer la formation qu’ils donnent aux étudiants en tant qu’intervention nécessitant le consentement libre et éclairé de ces derniers. Nous espérons que cet exercice amènera les enseignants à changer de paradigme et les étudiants à entreprendre leur formation médicale de façon libre et informée

Warning: Medical education is hazardous to your mental health. Medical students should make an informed decision to begin and continue training

For decades there has been ample evidence that training to become a physician and practicing medicine is hazardous to one’s health and wellness. In the face of the extremely high rates of suicide, substance abuse, depression and burnout in the medical student, resident, and physician populations, it would be dishonest to suggest medical education and practice is all gain and no pain. This article is directed to members of the medical education community and challenges stakeholders to view their teaching and training of medical students as an intervention requiring free and informed consent. We hope this exercise shifts the paradigm of educators and enables students to enter medical training from a free and informed position.Depuis des décennies, il existe amplement de preuves à l’effet que la formation t et la pratique de la médecine peuvent compromettre la santé et le bien-être de la personne. Face aux taux extrêmement élevés de suicide, de toxicomanie, de dépression et d’épuisement professionnel tant chez les étudiants, les résidents que les médecins, il serait faux de prétendre qu’on est ou qu’on devient médecin sans faire de sacrifice. Cet article s’adresse aux acteurs du milieu de l’éducation médicale pour les inciter à considérer la formation qu’ils donnent aux étudiants en tant qu’intervention nécessitant le consentement libre et éclairé de ces derniers. Nous espérons que cet exercice amènera les enseignants à changer de paradigme et les étudiants à entreprendre leur formation médicale de façon libre et informée

Radiation safety practices among Canadian equine veterinary workers during diagnostic procedures with portable X-ray equipment

Tables 1-3, unconditional analysesPeer Reviewe

Towards a deeper understanding of parenting on farms: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND:Children living on farms experience exceptionally high risks for traumatic injury. There is a large body of epidemiological research documenting this phenomenon, yet few complementary studies that have explored the deep underlying reasons for such trends. Fundamental to this is understanding the decision-making processes of parents surrounding their choice to bring children, or not, into the farm worksite. OBJECTIVES:To (1) document farm parent views of the risks and benefits of raising children on a family farm, and, (2) understand more deeply why children are brought into the farm worksite. METHODS:Interviews were conducted as part of a larger cohort study, The Saskatchewan Farm Injury Cohort. Subsequent to an initial mail-out question focused on parental decision-making, 11 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with rural Saskatchewan farm parents. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, then thematically analyzed using interpretive description methodology. FINDINGS:This parental decision-making process on farms fundamentally involves weighing the risks vs. benefits of bringing children into the worksite, as if on a balance scale. One side of this scale holds potential risks such as exposure to physical and chemical farm hazards, in the absence of full supervision. The other side holds potential benefits such as meeting family needs for childcare, labour, and family time; building work ethic and pride; and the positive impacts of involvement and responsibility. Decision-making 'tips the scales', in part dependent upon parental perceptions of the risk-benefit trade-off. This 'perceptual lens' is influenced by factors such as: the agricultural way of life, parents' prior knowledge and past experience, characteristics of children, and safety norms. CONCLUSIONS:This novel qualitative study provides deep insight into how Saskatchewan farm parents approach a fundamental decision-making process associated with their parenting. The proposed model provides insight into the etiology of pediatric farm injuries as well as their prevention

Cohort profile: the Saskatchewan Rural Health Study—adult component

Abstract Objectives Less is known about the respiratory health of general farming and non-framing populations. A longitudinal Saskatchewan Rural Health Study (SRHS) was conducted to explore the association between individual and contextual factors with respiratory health outcomes in these populations. Hence, the objectives are to: (i) describe the updated methodology of longitudinal SRHS—an extension of baseline survey methodology published earlier; (ii) compare baseline characteristics and the prevalences of respiratory health outcomes between drops-outs and completers; and (iii) summarize key findings based on baseline survey data. Results The SRHS was a prospective cohort study conducted in two phases: baseline survey in 2010 and a follow-up in 2014. Each survey consisted of two components, self-administered questionnaire and clinical assessments. At baseline, 8261 participants (≥ 18 years) (4624 households) and at follow-up, 4867 participants (2797 households) completed the questionnaires. Clinical assessments on lung functions and/or allergies were conducted among a sub-group of participants from both the surveys. To date, we published 15 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 40 abstracts in conference proceedings. Findings from the study will improve the knowledge of respiratory disease etiology and assist in the development and targeting of prevention programs for rural populations in Saskatchewan, Canada