Clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries in agricultural and nonagricultural workers visiting the emergency department: a propensity-matched analysis

• Published in: Clinical and experimental emergency medicine Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 68 - 78
• Main Authors: Kang, Jong Yeon, Song, Sung Wook, Hong, Hansol, Kim, Woo Jeong, Kang, YoungJoon, Kang, Jeong Ho, Lee, Sung Kgun, Bu, Ji Hwan, Ko, Seo Young, Lee, Soo Hoon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 01.03.2024; 대한응급의학회
• Subjects: agriculture; farmers; occupational injuries; propensity score; wounds and injuries; 응급의학; Agriculture; Farmers; Propensity score; Occupational injuries; Wounds and injuries
• ISSN: 2383-4625; 2383-4625
• DOI: 10.15441/ceem.23.022

Objective Agriculture is a hazardous industry. However, previous studies have focused on injuries to agricultural workers without comparison with injuries to nonagricultural workers. Therefore, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries reported at an emergency department (ED) between agricultural workers and nonagricultural workers.Methods We established a prospective ED-based agricultural injury surveillance system at a tertiary university hospital. Adult patients visiting the ED for an injury were divided into farmer and non-farmer groups depending on their engagement with agriculture. Using an adjusted multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (age, sex, inhabitant, and insurance type), we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries between the farmer and non-farmer groups.Results In total, 38,556 injured adult patients (37,746 in the non-farmer group and 810 in the farmer group) were available for the unmatched sample analysis. The 1,620 matched subjects were equally classified after one-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the unmatched sample revealed higher adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for intensive care unit admission (adjusted OR, 1.752; P=0.003) and overall surgery (adjusted OR, 1.870; P<0.001) in the farmer group. In contrast, univariate logistic regression analyses of the propensity score–matched sample found a higher OR in the farmer group only for overall surgery (OR, 1.786; P<0.001).Conclusion Injuries of agricultural workers had higher odds only of requiring surgery; differences in injury-related mortality between groups were not statistically significant in either the matched or unmatched sample analyses.