Frontiers reaches 6.4 on Journal Impact Factors

Review ARTICLE

Front. Public Health, 23 December 2016 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00282

A Guide to the Design of Occupational Safety and Health Training for Immigrant, Latino/a Dairy Workers

  • 1Department of Psychology, College of Natural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
  • 2Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
  • 3Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Industrialized dairy production in the U.S. relies on an immigrant, primarily Latino/a, workforce to meet greater production demands. Given the high rates of injuries and illnesses on U.S. dairies, there is pressing need to develop culturally appropriate training to promote safe practices among immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. To date, there have been few published research articles or guidelines specific to developing effective occupational safety and health (OSH) training for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry. Literature relevant to safety training for immigrant workers in agriculture and other high-risk industries (e.g., construction) was examined to identify promising approaches. The aim of this paper is to provide a practical guide for researchers and practitioners involved in the design and implementation of effective OSH training programs for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed academic journals and guidelines published between 1980 and 2015 by universities or extension programs, written in English, and related to health and safety training among immigrant, Latino/a workers within agriculture and other high-risk industries. Relevant recommendations regarding effective training transfer were also included from literature in the field of industrial–organizational psychology. A total of 97 articles were identified, of which 65 met the inclusion criteria and made a unique and significant contribution. The review revealed a number of promising strategies for how to effectively tailor health and safety training for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry grouped under five main themes: (1) understanding and involving workers; (2) training content and materials; (3) training methods; (4) maximizing worker engagement; and (5) program evaluation. The identification of best practices in the design and implementation of training programs for immigrant, Latino/a workers within agriculture and other high-risk industries can inform the development of more effective and sustainable health and safety training for immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers in the U.S. and other countries.

Introduction

Compared to other industries, workers in the U.S. dairy industry experience higher rates of work-related illnesses and injuries (13). Aspects of dairy work that pose a threat to worker health and safety include operating hazardous machinery, performing dangerous livestock handling tasks, exposure to hazardous substances (e.g., manure, dirty water, dust, various chemicals), environments prone to slips, trips, and falls, and tasks requiring high repetition, awkward postures, and inadequate rest (1, 4). The U.S. dairy industry relies on an immigrant, primarily Latino/a workforce to meet the demands of operating large-herd, industrialized farms (5, 6). Although detailed surveillance data documenting the patterns of occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the dairy industry are lacking (7), high rates of injuries and illnesses among immigrant workers have been reported (810). Given the direct and indirect expenditures associated with workplace injuries and illnesses, including the high costs of workers’ compensation, and the social burden of injuries and illnesses on individual workers, their families, and communities, it is essential to ensure provision of optimally designed occupational safety and health (OSH) training for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry (9).

There are few federal regulations surrounding OSH training in the dairy industry. The Agricultural Exceptionalism law, which was put in place as a way to protect family farms but continues to shield large-scale industrial agriculture, deems the dairy industry exempt from many of the standards enforced in other industries (11). Due to this lack of regulation, OSH training on U.S. dairies is scant, varied in terms of content and scope, and not applied universally (1216). Román-Muñiz et al. (13) interviewed 72 workers representing 15 dairies to better understand current training available on Colorado dairies. Nearly three quarters reported receiving task-related training (73.6%), while just over half (56.9%) reported receiving safety training upon being hired. Of great concern, nearly one-fifth (19.4%) claimed to have received no job or safety training at all. Focus group studies with dairy workers in Wisconsin (14) as well as in Colorado and South Dakota (15) also found insufficient OSH training. Sorge et al. (16) surveyed dairy producers to assess current cattle handling training on Minnesota dairy farms, of which approximately 25% reported providing no training to new employees. The most commonly mentioned barriers to training were time limitations (39.4%) and language barriers (26%).

It seems that even when OSH training is provided on dairies, it may not have the intended impact on health and safety outcomes. For instance, the previously mentioned study by Román-Muñiz et al. (13) did not find a significant relationship between safety training and injury outcomes. This is not surprising given that training on U.S. dairy farms is often not adequately tailored for an immigrant, Latino/a workforce (10, 12). The majority of immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers have limited formal education, speak little or no English, and have low levels of literacy (17). Many also have limited or no previous dairy experience or foundational training on OSH and, as a result, fail to recognize the hazards in their work (7, 1820). Immigrant workers also experience a number of unique psychosocial stressors, such as social isolation (21, 22), poverty (2225), discrimination (15, 22), and lack of employment security (26), that need to be understood and taken into account when developing OSH programs. Such workers may be more likely to take risks at work and less likely to use safety equipment, follow safety procedures, and voice concerns about unsafe conditions (10).

There are few published research articles and guidelines specific to developing effective OSH training programs for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry (27). To address this gap, literature relevant to safety training for immigrant, Latino/a workers in agriculture and other high-risk industries was reviewed to identify current practices, promising approaches, and recommendations. The aim of this review is to provide a practical guide for researchers and practitioners involved in the design and implementation of OSH training programs for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry. Future interventions will likely be more successful if they build on lessons from the past (28).

Materials and Methods

The literature search was restricted to peer-reviewed academic journal articles and guidelines that were (1) published between 1980 and 2015; (2) by universities or extension programs; (3) written in English; and (4) related to OSH training among foreign-born immigrant, Latino/a workers within agriculture and other high-risk industries. The following databases were used for the search: Academic Search Premier, Agricola, CAB Abstracts, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Three categories of search terms were used as follows: (1) OSH training (i.e., training, safety training, safety education, industrial safety); (2) immigrant, Latino/a workers (i.e., immigrant, migrant, Hispanic, Latino/a, Spanish-speaking worker, foreign born); and (3) agriculture and other high-risk industries (i.e., dairy, farming, agriculture, construction, forestry, mining, transportation, high-risk industry). A Boolean search of article abstracts included terms from each category in an additive manner (AND) while including terms within each category in a disjunctive manner (OR).

The above criteria were used to select only abstracts showing a relationship to the topic. First, article abstracts were reviewed to assess applicability. If abstracts included insufficient information to determine relevance, then the full text was reviewed. Reference lists from published papers were also screened to identify additional articles not identified in the initial search. Articles were excluded from further analysis if they (a) did not concern immigrant, Latino/a workers and (b) did not provide suggestions or insights related to OSH training. A summary of recommendations to promote training transfer, defined as the transfer of the knowledge and skills learned in training to the work context, were also included from literature in the field of industrial–organizational psychology.

Results

The review uncovered a number of articles related to designing OSH training for immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. A total of 97 articles were identified, of which 65 are cited in Sections “Results” and/or “Discussion”. Thirty-two of the identified articles were not included either because they did not meet the inclusion criteria upon review or because they did not make a unique and significant contribution beyond those already cited. Articles cited include literature reviews, intervention studies, survey studies, qualitative studies, scale validation studies, and case studies, as well as publications regarding training transfer best practices. Additional articles are cited to provide relevant context and background information. The literature on OSH recommendations was categorized by five main themes: understanding and involving workers, training content and materials, training methods, maximizing worker engagement, and program evaluation. Following is a description of each theme with relevant recommended strategies. See Table 1 for a summary of recommended strategies.

TABLE 1
www.frontiersin.org

Table 1. Summary of recommended approaches and example of key strategies for each theme.

Understand and Involve Workers

Among immigrant, Latino/a workers, there is great variation in terms of country of origin, level of education and acculturation, language and literacy skills, current and past socioeconomic status, legal status, and experiences of racism and discrimination (29). Even workers who come from the same country can have vastly different life experiences and occupational backgrounds (7) and varying exposure to OSH hazards and safety training (30). In order to develop effective and appropriately tailored OSH training, it is essential to understand the diverse realities of immigrant, Latino/a workers. Formative research and community-based participatory (CBP) methods are two promising approaches for understanding workers through active involvement.

Formative Research

Formative research aims to understand the knowledge attitudes, opinions, skills, beliefs, and needs of the target population in relation to the health issues of interest and can take many forms, including literature reviews, health assessments, observations, interviews, and focus group discussions (31, 32). Formative research should include both dairy management and the workers themselves to identify key issues, ensure relevance, and gain buy-in through both bottom–up and top–down approaches (7, 33). If OSH programing is developed based on the expressed needs and concerns of dairy management and the workers themselves, they will feel their voice has been heard and may be more inclined to actively engage in it (or in the case of dairy management, promote engagement in it) as a result (34).

CBP Methods

CBP methods have been suggested as a way to continue to engage managers and workers as key decision makers throughout the entire OSH program design, implementation, and dissemination process (35). The aim of taking a CBP approach is to bring together members from the target group and program developers in order to “establish trust, share power, foster co-learning, enhance strengths and resources, build capacity, and examine and address community-identified needs and health problems” (36) (p. 14). There are many ways to adopt a participatory approach. For instance, workers can assist in the development of training materials and company documents and policies related to OSH, the latter of which often include legal and technical jargon that would confuse even the most educated and experienced readers (37). CBP methods facilitate increased access to and trust with community members and result in programs that are more culturally and educationally appropriate, sustainable, and replicable in other communities (35). CBP approaches capitalize on the valuable insights and collective strengths of the target group while also developing their capacity to advocate for and achieve change (35). Arcury et al. (35) reviewed five CBP programs aiming to prevent pesticide exposure among migrant and seasonal farmworkers to identify common elements of successful CBP projects. They emphasized the importance of taking the time to build and maintain relationships with and understand the goals and strengths of all stakeholder groups concerned with promoting OSH (e.g., workers, family members, farmers, general community residents, advocacy groups, healthcare providers), being flexible and creative, and providing multiple avenues for participation so different stakeholders can get involved to their own ability/comfort levels. See Quandt et al. (38) for an example of a CBP approach to develop a pesticide safety program with Mexican farmworkers in North Carolina.

Training Content and Materials

In addition to being based on sound health communication principles [e.g., see Rowan (39) for risk communication guidelines], OSH training content and materials must be tailored to the unique needs of immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. Overall, content and materials should be comprehensive and appropriately tailored in terms of language and literacy, cultural diversity, and workplace realities.

Be Comprehensive

Many immigrant workers have limited or no previous dairy experience (14, 15, 40), and therefore OSH programs should be comprehensive in terms of covering all potential hazards (7). Overall, it should not be assumed that workers have even basic OSH knowledge. In addition to safe animal handling, operation of hazardous machinery, and prevention of environmental risks (e.g., heat-related illnesses), dairy workers should also be trained on body mechanics and ergonomics to prevent musculoskeletal disorders common in industrialized dairy (41). OSH training should cover both the how and why of protective measures and all workers should be trained equally, regardless of previous experience, as task and safety procedures vary across dairies (42, 43). Workers should be trained in safety for all areas of the dairy, especially when there is a tendency for job rotation. Trainings should also educate workers about health insurance and workers compensation (14, 15), as well as their rights and responsibilities under OSHA, and provide information and resources on where to get help in addressing OSH problems (44, 45). Additionally, trainings should include information pertaining to employer responsibilities and how workers can go about pursuing grievances when these responsibilities are not fulfilled (46).

Finally, OSH programs should also be holistic in the sense of acknowledging non-work-related challenges faced by immigrant, Latino/a workers. For instance, financial strain, separation from family, and poor work–life balance could lead to stress and family dysfunction, which in turn could affect productivity and safety at work (21). Workers should be provided with information regarding affordable and accessible community resources and services available to help cope with some of these non-work issues (22).

Be Language and Literacy Appropriate

With few exceptions [e.g., Ref. (33, 47)], language and literacy appropriate OSH trainings for immigrant, Latino/a workers are rare. This poses a serious problem: if workers cannot understand the content and materials, they will be minimally effective in promoting OSH. In terms of language, training materials should be provided in Spanish and English (and/or another language native to workers) to accommodate workers who may feel more comfortable with one language than the other (48). When translating materials, an approach known as decentering, which prioritizes conceptual clarity over literal translation, has been recommended [see Brunette (49) for a more detailed description]. Care should be taken to use tildes and accents as appropriate, as they influence the meaning of many Spanish words (48). Immigrant, Latino/a farmworkers have been found to have an average of 6 years of education; thus, it is generally recommended to keep materials at a low reading level (50). Materials including realistic and vivid symbols with well-known objects and settings and the use of traffic light colors to communicate risk level have been suggested for use with Latino/a farmworkers (51, 52).

To ensure that materials are at the appropriate level, they should be field tested with members of the target audience who are not able to fluently read or write in either language (44). Cognitive interviewing, in which members of the target group are given the training materials and asked to articulate their understanding of the information in order to determine if the intended messages are being communicated, may be a particularly useful approach in this context (53). Health and safety educators can also collaborate with ESL and literacy professionals to ensure that content is at the right level (54). To ensure comprehension of common dairy industry terms, McGlothlin et al. (55) recommended providing workers with a pictorial glossary with a description of basic and advanced terminology to refer to during training as well as after training is complete. Similarly, Opatik and Novak (56) recommended provision of a pocket size pronunciation guide.

Embrace Cultural Diversity

Simple translation of OSH materials with subtitles in the necessary language(s) and at the appropriate level is not sufficient (49, 57). On a basic level, training content should incorporate familiar cultural phenomenon. For instance, materials should include same race/ethnicity role models and be packaged in a way that is similar to how workers are accustomed to receiving information in their home countries (58). At the same time, it is important to avoid cultural stereotypes and remain sensitive to varying levels of acculturation. Members from the target population should review materials to confirm cultural relevance (49).

Beyond aligning training with familiar cultural phenomenon and imagery, concerted effort should be made to understand and incorporate the core cultural beliefs of the workers (especially those that may affect OSH) into training materials (49). Latinos/as tend to share a common set of values that are different from those found in mainstream American culture, such as higher levels of in-group collectivism, greater acceptance of hierarchical power structures, and stronger adherence to traditional gender roles (59, 60). For instance, familism (i.e., a strong attachment to nuclear and extended family) is a central value among Latinos/as that may influence OSH behaviors (60). Training content and materials should emphasize the family-related implications of not adhering to OSH policies and procedures. Immigrant workers also have diverse cultural beliefs related to health behaviors, which need to be understood and integrated into OSH training (61, 62). Training should sensitively emphasize the implications of adhering to potentially risky traditional practices and beliefs (63). See Sanders-Smith (48) for a review of cultural issues that impact the Latino/a workforce.

Acknowledge Workplace Realities

It is essential that OSH training is reflective of workers’ day-to-day realities (15). When safety information is viewed as meaningful, valuable, and relevant to everyday experiences, it may enhance motivation to learn and aid with memorization and recollection processes (63). One way to ensure OSH training reflects workplace realities is to integrate it with task training as much as possible (13). Whether delivered separately or in conjunction with task training, careful attention should be made to acknowledge what is feasible or realistic for the workers. For instance, merely informing workers of safety policies and procedures does not acknowledge the fear of negative consequences workers may have if they act on or report hazardous situations (7). It is also important to regularly update and adapt OSH trainings to coincide with the rapid pace of change in organizational practices in the dairy industry, such as changes in globalization, migration patterns, and the economy (27).

Training Methods

In addition to training content, the methods by which OSH training programs are delivered must also be carefully tailored to meet the unique needs of immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. Overall, native Spanish-speaking trainers are suggested over English-speaking trainers with translators given the difficulty in ensuring accurate translation (64). Ideally, trainers should be bilingual and bicultural so that they can aid in promoting comprehension of OSH concepts while adjusting for relevant cultural influences (58). A few basic principles to follow are to use a variety of formats and media, promote active participation, empower workers, enlist peers as trainers, and promote training transfer.

Use a Variety of Formats and Media

It is likely that some workers may not have developed the skills to learn through formal education and, therefore, may have limited ability to learn new concepts through traditional pedagogical approaches. A variety of formats (e.g., audio-visual, face to face, verbal communication, hands-on) and media (e.g., flipcharts, videos, comic books, cartoons, fotonovelas, targeted brochures) should be utilized to accommodate low literacy levels and different learning preferences (7). See Reinhardt et al. (65) for an example of a training using various formats and media in the context of dairy OSH. One creative approach that has proven to effectively increase health-related knowledge among immigrant, Latino/a farmworker populations is the use of theatrical presentations to disseminate health information [e.g., Ref. (66, 67)]. For instance, Holmes et al. (41) found a combined a Spanish language fotonovela play, a live demonstration and practice session, and educational pamphlets effective in promoting correct lifting techniques among predominantly female, Latino/a fruit warehouse workers.

Computer-based instruction may be considered as a more cost efficient training modality compared to in-person training. Anger et al. (68, 69) found support for using computer-based instruction in promoting OSH knowledge and behavioral outcomes among Latino/a workers with limited formal education. Evia (70) proposed a participatory approach to design culturally tailored computer-based OSH training for Latino/a construction workers. Mobile phone and internet-based interventions may also be promising modes of OSH training, but may be more effective with younger working populations (71).

Promote Active Participation

There is a large literature base suggesting that trainings based on active participation are more effective than lecture-based trainings (72). There are numerous ways to promote active engagement in trainings, such as group problem solving, hazard mapping, hands-on demonstrations and simulations, role-playing activities, photo voice, and other art-based approaches (see O’Connor et al. (44) for a more detailed list of approaches and Román-Muñiz et al. (73) for examples of hands-on demonstrations in the dairy context). In reviewing training content, verbal quizzes and games should be used instead of written formats to reinforce training messages and to invite discussion or questions (44). Trainees should also be provided with regular feedback so that they can evaluate their progress and learn from their mistakes (44).

It is also important to consider cultural attitudes toward learning and adjust training methods accordingly. For instance, Latino/a workers may perceive expressing dissenting opinions or asking questions as disrespectful, so instructors may need to make extra efforts to encourage active participation (74). For example, it may be necessary to break trainees into small groups to make them feel comfortable discussing issues and sharing their experiences (44). Cultural variation in gender dynamics should also be considered. For instance, trainees may feel more comfortable sharing if grouped by gender (44). Given the strong value placed on family within Latino/a culture, it may also be beneficial to determine ways to involve family members in the learning process. For instance, workers can be sent home with information to share or an activity to work on with their family.

Empower Workers

OSH training will be minimally effective if workers do not feel empowered to implement the lessons learned. There are a number of ways in which trainings can be tailored to empower workers to stay healthy and safe. At the individual level, OSH training activities should empower workers to identify and analyze OSH issues and develop their own solutions and action plans (44). Hurley and Lebbon (9) suggested that workers regularly meet with managers to set safety-related goals, which would also serve to further strengthen worker–manager relations. Assertiveness training may also be beneficial in terms of helping dairy workers to overcome fears of speaking up regarding OSH issues and concerns (75). However, Shrestha and Menzel (76) piloted an assertiveness training as part of a fall prevention training targeting Latino/a construction workers and found that a low percentage of workers identified the training as useful. They attributed this finding to the possibility that workers may view speaking up about safety issues as a threat to their job security, which is often prioritized over safety. At the collective level, training should present safety as a shared responsibility, encourage workers to discuss risk and protective factors with one another, and promote leadership skills for organizing and taking action in terms of advocating for provision of personal protective equipment and remediation of hazards in the work environment (44, 77, 78).

Enlist Peers as Trainers

Immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers may be more likely to learn about OSH from their coworkers than from formal training programs. Román-Muñiz et al. (13) found that training provided by coworkers had a protective effect against work-related injuries, but this effect was not found when provided by dairy managers. They speculated that coworkers may be better able to deliver safety information in an informal and culturally acceptable manner, compared to managers who may have inadequate Spanish language skills and/or a limited comprehension of the cultural factors that influence effective communication (p. 23).

The Promotoras de Salud model is an approach that relies on trained lay Latino/a community members to deliver health messages and has been found to be effective in changing OSH attitudes and behaviors of immigrant, Latino/a workers in high-risk jobs [e.g., Ref. (7982)]. Bush et al. (81) piloted a promotoras program with forest workers and found increased knowledge and awareness of OSH risks and resources. They highlighted the importance of providing non-literacy-based outreach and training tools and leadership development opportunities for promotoras and engaging promotoras in community outreach to connect with workers in comfortable environments (e.g., homes, community festivals, churches). It is also important that promotoras be frequently praised; educated regarding local, state, and national events affecting immigrant workers; supported in troubleshooting personal, community, and work-related obstacles; and provided with an honorarium to make the investment of their time worthwhile and foster a sense of accomplishment (82). The value of adopting participatory approaches, both in terms of training methods and project planning has been emphasized in order to promote effectiveness, commitment, and leadership skills among peer trainers (83).

Despite the many benefits of peer trainers, some workers may prefer to receive training from an expert because: (1) an expert might be viewed as more knowledgeable and therefore be taken more seriously and (2) a trained peer might leave causing a sudden loss of benefit from their knowledge (38). Therefore, it could be beneficial to use a combination of peer and expert trainers.

Promote Training Transfer

Training transfer, a construct from the field of industrial–organizational psychology, is the extent to which the knowledge and skills learned in training are transferred to the job (84). In order to promote the transfer of training, first trainees must feel motivated to learn and have efficacy to apply training content to the workplace (84). Latino/a workers’ perceptions of work as essential to life and pain as an inevitable part of work (61) and beliefs that animal-related injuries are not preventable (15) may cause them to be less motivated to engage in the preventive behaviors promoted in OSH programing. Special efforts may be needed to supersede these beliefs and help workers understand the efficacy and value of prevention. The goal should be to help workers develop motivation, confidence, and critical thinking skills to apply OSH training content to protect themselves from the myriad hazards they face in their work. Some programs offer incentives, such as a completion certificates, to motivate training transfer [e.g., Ref. (43, 75)]. As previously suggested, internal motivation can be fostered by personalizing OSH training content to the day-to-day realities faced by workers and managers to ensure that they perceive it as relevant and useful (85). Self-efficacy can be promoted through behavioral modeling (including both positive and negative examples of desired behaviors) and providing opportunities for trainees to practice using new knowledge/skills (86). Role-playing exercises and other types of simulations can be beneficial in terms of promoting active learning and providing opportunities to practice (84). It is also important to help trainees recognize the challenges they may face in implementing the new knowledge and skills and brainstorm strategies to overcome them through error management techniques (87).

Training should be conducted in an environment that closely resembles the workplace to make for a more natural transition from the training context to the work context (84). Kraiger et al. (84, 88) recommended varying training scenarios to help trainees develop the skills they will need to handle issues across multiple conditions that can occur on the job. Training should also highlight situational cues within and outside of the workplace that will help trainees remember to engage in OSH behaviors (78). For instance, Quandt et al. (78) encouraged trainees to lay a mat outside the door of their home as a visual reminder that work boots should be removed before entering to keep their children and other family members safe from harmful exposures. To promote sustained training transfer, it is also important for trainings to foster supervisor and peer support to engage in OSH behaviors and provide additional learning opportunities after training (e.g., through refresher training and after action reviews) (84).

Maximize Worker Engagement in OSH Programing

If workers are not engaged in OSH initiatives, they are not likely to benefit from them. In order to maximize engagement, it is important to acknowledge that workers may not view safety as their number one priority and build OSH content into trainings on other topics that workers view as higher priorities (which can be identified through formative research) (44). Workers should be consulted regarding the ideal duration and scheduling of OSH trainings (75, 89). A high level of engagement can also be promoted by collaborating with community organizations that already have a well-established relationship with the immigrant, Latino/a community [e.g., Ref. (33, 90)]. To ensure continued engagement, it is also important that OSH training be treated as an ongoing process that all workers, regardless of tenure, are encouraged to participate in, rather than a one-time event (73).

Another key approach to enhancing worker engagement is for dairy owners/managers to foster a strong culture of OSH throughout the dairy. Due to the frequency of their exposure to OSH hazards, dairy owners/managers may deny susceptibility to risk or be skeptical of safety measures and give workers the impression that the health and safety of the cows is prioritized over that of the workers (7). Programs are needed to educate dairy owners/managers about the realities concerning various risks inherent in dairy work, the impact of poor OSH on productivity and the bottom line (7), and how to foster an atmosphere of trust in which workers feel their safety is a priority. Dairy owners and managers should be actively involved in trainings, which will in turn enhance perceived safety culture and inspire workers to transfer the OSH knowledge and skills learned to the workplace (7, 73). It may be beneficial to start by assessing safety climate, a measure of safety culture, to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. Measuring changes in safety climate across time can also be used to assess the impact of OSH interventions [see Jorgensen et al. (91) and Flynn (92) for more on assessing safety climate among workers from different backgrounds].

Program Evaluation

OSH programs in the agricultural sector have historically lacked rigorous program evaluation (12, 93). This deficiency greatly limits the potential of such programs to contribute to the evidence base of what does and does not work in terms of protecting and promoting worker health. To ensure the optimization of OSH training for immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers, program evaluation is critical. In addition to providing evidence of programmatic worth, evaluation can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses, examine the extent to which goals are being met, and supply information that can be used to improve program outcomes (9497). Evaluations should assess whether OSH programs are having the intended impact on worker attitudes and behaviors as well as incidents of work-related injuries and illnesses (i.e., impact evaluation) and collect the views of dairy workers and management related to program strengths and weaknesses and suggestions for improvement (i.e., process evaluation). Some have suggested conducting process evaluation during the implementation phase so feedback can be used to make improvements before the end of the program [e.g., Ref. (98)]. It may be necessary to provide bilingual staff members to assist non-literate participants in completing evaluation materials verbally (41, 75).

Whether conducting an impact or process evaluation, both quantitative and qualitative approaches (i.e., mixed methods) should be utilized to provide a richer view of the knowledge level, attitudes, and practices of low literacy workers (99). Ahonen et al. (100) used a participatory, mixed methods approach to evaluate the design, delivery, reactions, participant learning, application of skills, dissemination, strengths and weakness, and return on investment of an OSH training with Spanish-speaking immigrant construction workers. Longitudinal methods are beneficial for assessing longer term program impacts but may be challenging due to high rates of turnover in the dairy industry. See Vela-Acosta et al. (33) for another example of a mixed methods evaluation approach used with Latino/a farmworkers and DeRoo and Rautiainien (12) and O’Connor et al. (44) for further recommendations related to program evaluation.

Discussion

Despite increasing reliance on immigrant, Latino/a workers within the dairy industry, few studies to date have focused on OSH training for this high-risk group. In order to fill this gap, the goal of this review was to summarize current strategies embraced by OSH training for immigrant, Latino/a workers from agriculture and other high-risk industries in order to provide a practical guide for researchers and practitioners involved in the design and implementation of effective OSH training programs for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry. Overall, whether programs are developed from the ground up or borrowed from elsewhere, it is essential that training materials and methods be based on a deep understanding the characteristics and realities of the immigrant worker (58). Strategies must also be adopted to maximize worker engagement and, in turn, program impact on OSH outcomes.

Of concern, this review revealed that many OSH programs targeting immigrant, Latino/a workers in high-risk industries fail to embrace established cultural models and systematic program and process evaluation. These deficiencies could result in the implementation or replication of programs that are based more on practitioners’ perceptions and intuitions about how to tailor interventions for Latino/a workers than on empirically tested theories. Also of concern is the fact that many programs are one-time events; yet, high rates of turnover and mobility among immigrant dairy workers demand an ongoing approach to training (7).

Seguridad en las Lecherías (17) is a recently developed program to promote OSH among immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers in Wisconsin that adopts many of the suggested guidelines. Seguridad en las Lecherías is a theory-based program utilizing the promotoras model for the first time within the dairy context. The program was developed based on formative research conducted to understand the perspectives and needs of dairy workers and producers. It was designed to be engaging, appropriate for workers with limited formal education and low literacy, and easy to replicate. It was conducted in partnership with various stakeholders (e.g., the Professional Dairy Producers of WI, the Mexican Consulate of St. Paul) who have extant knowledge of and experience with immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. See Tovar-Aguilar et al. (101) for an example of another program that utilized many of the best practices outlined in this review to promote eye safety among Latino/a citrus harvest workers.

Limitations and Future Research

There are many important directions for future research related to OSH programing for immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. First, there is a great need for additional studies to better understand the prevalence and nature of occupational injuries and illnesses among this working population, which can guide the prioritization of OSH programs. In order to acquire accurate epidemiologic data, efforts are needed to improve reporting of work-related injuries, illnesses, and near misses (7). Although the present review identified a number of promising strategies, systematic meta-analyses are also needed to assess the relative effectiveness of intervention approaches that incorporate the specific training needs of the Latino/a workforce.

It is important to keep in mind that training programs are just one component of OSH for immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers. Training programs are limited in that they only focus on the individual worker, rather than addressing the root cause of injuries and exposures (102). Hagevoort et al. (103) have advocated for a macro approach to OSH programing, inclusive of the workers, the work environment, as well as cultural, social, and economic factors external to the work context. Higher level policy changes and their proper enforcement are needed to standardize OSH training for the dairy industry and address the challenging life circumstances of immigrant, Latino/a workers (104, 105). It is also important to promote access to and utilization of health services (106) and ameliorate physical and psychosocial stressors among immigrant, Latino/a workers, which have been associated with decreased cognitive function and mental health-related outcomes (107). OSH initiatives focused on engineering and administrative controls in addition to those focused on individual behavior change are also essential in reducing workplace hazards (108).

Another major difficulty related to promoting OSH among immigrant, Latino/a dairy workers lies in the considerable communication barriers between workers and non-Latino/a dairy owners and managers (89). In addition to OSH training, ESL and SSL classes should be provided to improve communication and comprehension of OSH materials (109). Programs targeting dairy management are also needed to promote safety leadership, engagement in OSH programing, cultural awareness, and skills in building positive and trusting relationships with immigrant, Latino/a workers (110). See Viveros-Guzmán and Gertler (111) for additional suggestions regarding improving communications between immigrant farmworkers and their employers.

Conclusion

The U.S. dairy industry and its workforce have undergone dramatic transformations in recent decades (14). OSH training programs in the dairy industry must take into account changing workforce demographics and the realities of a global immigrant workforce. Training programs that adapt to the needs of their specific workforce will have the greatest impact and effectiveness. Given the high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses in the dairy industry and the increasing reliance on an immigrant, primarily Latino/a workforce, efforts to protect and promote health and safety must be sensitive to the unique attitudes, understandings, and behaviors of immigrant, Latino/a workers. As stated by Liebman et al. (17), “it is incumbent upon the industry to address the risks associated with bringing a naïve workforce into one of the most dangerous areas (large-animal agriculture) of one of the most dangerous industries (agriculture) in the country” (p. 81). This review marks an initial step in identifying current practices and promising approaches in the design and implementation of OSH training programs for immigrant, Latino/a workers within agriculture and other high-risk industries to inform the development of more effective and sustainable OSH training for immigrant, Latino/a workers in the dairy industry. It is our hope that the programs reviewed provide a significant foundation which researchers and practitioners can challenge, test, and build upon.

Author Contributions

All authors (LM, JR, LS, and IR-M) have (1) contributed substantially to the conception or design of the work and/or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work, (2) participated in drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) approved the final version to be published, and (4) agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. LM and IR-M contributed to the design of the work, analysis and interpretation of the data, and the drafting and revising of the manuscript. LS and JR contributed to the design of the work and the drafting and revising of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Florencia Pezzutti for her assistance with the literature review for this project.

Funding

This research was made possible through a grant (#5U54OH008085) provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIOSH. The authors declare there that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Douphrate DI, Stallones L, Lunner Kolstrup C, Nonnenmann MW, Pinzke S, Hagevoort GR, et al. Work-related injuries and fatalities on dairy farm operations–a global perspective. J Agromedicine (2013) 18(3):256–64. doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2013.796904

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (2014).

Google Scholar

3. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses-2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (2015).

Google Scholar

4. Douphrate DI, Gimeno D, Nonnenmann MW, Hagevoort R, Rosas-Goulart C, Rosecrance JC. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms among US large-herd dairy parlor workers. Am J Ind Med (2014) 57(3):370–9. doi:10.1002/ajim.22286

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Grusenmeyer D, Maloney T. In-depth Look at Hispanics on Dairies. Cornell PRO-DAIRY. Ithaca, NY: Northeast DairyBusiness (2004).

Google Scholar

6. Jenkins PL, Stack SG, May JJ, Earle-Richardson G. Growth of the Spanish-speaking workforce in the northeast dairy industry. J Agromedicine (2009) 14(1):58–65. doi:10.1080/10599240802623387

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Arcury TA, Estrada JM, Quandt SA. Overcoming language and literacy barriers in safety and health training of agricultural workers. J Agromedicine (2010) 15(3):236–48. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2010.486958

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Schenker MB. A global perspective of migration and occupational health. Am J Ind Med (2010) 53(4):329–37. doi:10.1002/ajim.20834

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Hurley DT, Lebbon AR. A comparison of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses among Hispanic versus non-Hispanic workers in the United States. Hisp J Behav Sci (2012) 34(3):474–90. doi:10.1177/0739986312448316

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Schenker M, Gunderson P. Occupational health in the dairy industry needs to focus on immigrant workers, the new normal. J Agromedicine (2013) 18:184–6. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2013.797375

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Wiggins M. Farm labor and the struggle for justice in the Eastern United States fields. In: Arcury TA, Quandt SA, editors. Latino Farmworkers in the Eastern United States: Health, Safety, and Justice. New York: Springer (2009). p. 201–20.

Google Scholar

12. DeRoo LA, Rautiainen RH. A systematic review of farm safety interventions. Am J Prev Med (2000) 18(4):51–62. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00141-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Román-Muñiz IN, Metre DCV, Garry FB, Reynolds SJ, Wailes WR, Keefe TJ. Training methods and association with worker injury on Colorado dairies: a survey. J Agromedicine (2006) 11(2):19–26. doi:10.1300/J096v11n02_05

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Liebman AK, Juarez-Carrillo PM, Reyes IAC, Keifer MC. Immigrant dairy workers’ perceptions of health and safety on the farm in America’s Heartland. Am J Ind Med (2015) 59(3):227–35. doi:10.1002/ajim.22538

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Menger LM, Pezzutti F, Tellechea T, Stallones L, Rosecrance J, Roman-Muniz IN. Perceptions of health and safety among immigrant Latino/a dairy workers in the U.S. Front Public Health (2016) 4:106. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00106

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Sorge U, Cherry C, Bender J. Perception of the importance of human-animal interactions on cattle flow and worker safety on Minnesota dairy farms. J Dairy Sci (2014) 97(7):4632–8. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-7971

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Liebman AK, Juárez-Carrillo P, Reyes IAC, Keifer MC. A model health and safety intervention for Hispanic immigrants working in the dairy industry. J Agromedicine (2014) 19(2):78–82. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2014.888025

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Carroll D, Samardick RM, Bernard S, Gabbard S, Hernandez T. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001–2002: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor (2005).

Google Scholar

19. Dyk P. Dairy Employee Survey-2007. Fond du Lac, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension (2007). p. 1–4.

Google Scholar

20. Harrison J, Lloyd S, O’Kane T. A Look into the Lives of Wisconsin’s Immigrant Dairy Workers. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Madison and Cooperative Extension, Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, Briefing (2009). 2 p.

Google Scholar

21. Lunner Kolstrup C, Kallioniemi M, Lundqvist P, Kymalainen HR, Stallones L, Brumby S. International perspectives on psychosocial working conditions, mental health, and stress of dairy farm operators. J Agromedicine (2013) 18(3):244–55. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2013.796903

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Magaña CG, Hovey JD. Psychosocial stressors associated with Mexican migrant farmworkers in the midwest United States. J Immigr Minor Health (2003) 5(2):75–86. doi:10.1023/A:1022955825650

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Albritton TA, Wagner PJ. Linking cultural competency and community service: a partnership between students, faculty, and the community. Acad Med (2002) 77(7):738–9. doi:10.1097/00001888-200207000-00024

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Gwyther ME, Jenkins M. Migrant farmworker children: health status, barriers to care, and nursing innovations in health care delivery. J Pediatr Health Care (1998) 12(2):60–6. doi:10.1016/S0891-5245(98)90223-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Mobed K, Gold EB, Schenker M. Occupational health problems among migrant and seasonal farm workers. West J Med (1992) 157(3):367–73.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

26. Carroll D, Georges A, Saltz R. Changing characteristics of US farm workers: 21 years of findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey. Immigration Reform and Agriculture Conference: Implications for Farmers, Farm Workers, and Communities. D.C. Campus: University of California (2011).

Google Scholar

27. Reynolds SJ, Lundqvist P, Colosio C. International dairy health and safety. J Agromedicine (2013) 18(3):179–83. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2013.812771

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Barrera M Jr, Castro FG, Strycker LA, Toobert DJ. Cultural adaptations of behavioral health interventions: a progress report. J Consult Clin Psychol (2013) 81(2):196–205. doi:10.1037/a0027085

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Elder JP, Ayala GX, Parra-Medina D, Talavera GA. Health communication in the Latino community: issues and approaches. Annu Rev Public Health (2009) 30:227–51. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100300

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Arcury TA, Quandt SA, Rao P, Russell GB. Pesticide use and safety training in Mexico: the experience of farmworkers employed in North Carolina. Hum Organ (2001) 60(1):56–66. doi:10.17730/humo.60.1.6pxljkubwv0w6uaw

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Morgan DL. The Focus Group Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (1997).

Google Scholar

32. Resnicow K, Soler R, Braithwaite RL, Ahluwalia JS, Butler J. Cultural sensitivity in substance use prevention. J Commun Psychol (2000) 28(3):271–90. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200005)28:3<271::AID-JCOP4>3.0.CO;2-I

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Acosta MSV, Sechrest L, Chen M-K. Farmworkers at the border: a bilingual initiative for occupational health and safety. Public Health Rep (2009) 124(Suppl 1):143–51.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

34. Scharf T, Kidd P, Cole H, Bean T, Chapman L, Donham KJ, et al. Intervention tools for farmers: safe and productive work practices in a safer work environment. J Agric Saf Health (1998) 4(Suppl 5):193–203. doi:10.13031/2013.15369

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Arcury TA, Quandt SA, Dearry A. Farmworker pesticide exposure and community-based participatory research: rationale and practical applications. Environ Health Perspect (2001) 109(Suppl 3):429–34. doi:10.1289/ehp.01109s3429

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Israel B, Eng E, Schulz A, Parker E. Introduction to methods in CBPR for health. In: Israel B, Eng E, Schulz A, Parker E, editors. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (2005). p. 3–26.

Google Scholar

37. Gallo ML. Picture this: immigrant workers use photography for communication and change. J Work Learn (2002) 14(2):49–57. doi:10.1108/13665620210419293

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Quandt SA, Arcury TA, Austin CK, Cabrera LF. Preventing occupational exposure to pesticides: using participatory research with Latino farmworkers to develop an intervention. J Immigr Health (2001) 3(2):85–96. doi:10.1023/A:1009513916713

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Rowan KE. Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: a problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. J Appl Commun Res (1991) 19(4):300–29. doi:10.1080/00909889109365311

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Maloney TR, Grusenmeyer DC. Survey of Hispanic Dairy Workers in New York State. Ithaca, NY: Department of Applied Economics and Management, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University (2005).

Google Scholar

41. Holmes W, Lam P-Y, Elkind P, Pitts K. The effect of body mechanics education on the work performance of fruit warehouse workers. Work (2008) 31(4):461–71.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

42. Smith SM, Perry T, Moyer D. Creating a safer workforce: Training needs for Hispanic and foreign-born workers. Prof Saf (2006) 51(12):20–5.

Google Scholar

43. Israelsen CE, Young AJ, Boman RL. Milking and calf care schools for Hispanics in Cache County. J Ext (2006) 44(4):4IAW2.

Google Scholar

44. O’Connor T, Flynn M, Weinstock D, Zanoni J. Occupational safety and health education and training for underserved populations. New Solut (2014) 24(1):83–106. doi:10.2190/NS.24.1.d

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

45. McCauley LA. Immigrant workers in the United States. Workplace Health Saf (2005) 53(7):313–19.

Google Scholar

46. Arcury TA, Summers P, Carrillo L, Grzywacz JG, Quandt SA, Mills TH. Occupational safety beliefs among Latino residential roofing workers. Am J Ind Med (2014) 57(6):718–25. doi:10.1002/ajim.22248

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Luque JS, Monaghan P, Contreras RB, August E, Baldwin JA, Bryant CA, et al. Implementation evaluation of a culturally competent eye injury prevention program for citrus workers in a Florida migrant community. Prog Community Health Partnersh (2007) 1(4):359–69. doi:10.1353/cpr.2007.0040

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Sanders-Smith S. Hispanic worker safety: Understanding culture improves training and prevents fatalities. Prof Saf (2007) 52(2):34–40.

Google Scholar

49. Brunette MJ. Development of educational and training materials on safety and health: targeting Hispanic workers in the construction industry. Fam Community Health (2005) 28(3):253–66. doi:10.1097/00003727-200507000-00006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Fleischer NL, Tiesman HM, Sumitani J, Mize T, Amarnath KK, Bayakly AR, et al. Public health impact of heat-related illness among migrant farmworkers. Am J Prev Med (2013) 44(3):199–206. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.020

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. LePrevost CE, Storm JF, Blanchard MR, Asuaje CR, Cope WG. Engaging Latino farmworkers in the development of symbols to improve pesticide safety and health education and risk communication. J Immigr Minor Health (2013) 15(5):975–81. doi:10.1007/s10903-012-9685-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Bust PD, Gibb AG, Pink S. Managing construction health and safety: migrant workers and communicating safety messages. Saf Sci (2008) 46(4):585–602. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Eggerth DE, Flynn MA. When the third world comes to the first: ethical considerations when working with Hispanic immigrants. Ethics Behav (2010) 20(3–4):229–42. doi:10.1080/10508421003798968

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Wallerstein N. Health and safety education for workers with low-literacy or limited-English skills. Am J Ind Med (1992) 22(5):751–65. doi:10.1002/ajim.4700220513

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. McGlothlin J, Hubbard B, Aghazadeh F, Hubbard S. Ergonomics: case study: safety training issues for hispanic construction workers. J Occup Environ Hyg (2009) 6(9):D45–50. doi:10.1080/15459620903106689

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Opatik A, Novak M. Latinos safety behaviors related to English literacy as reported by dairy producers in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. J Ext (2010) 20(4FEA):113–24.

Google Scholar

57. Morera MC, Monaghan PF, Tovar-Aguilar JA, Galindo-Gonzalez S, Roka FM, Asuaje C. Improving health and safety conditions in agriculture through professional training of Florida farm labor supervisors. J Agromedicine (2014) 19(2):117–22. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2014.886318

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Jaselskis E, Strong K, Aveiga F, Canales A, Jahren C. Successful multi-national workforce integration program to improve construction site performance. Saf Sci (2008) 46(4):603–18. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.023

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Guerrero L, Posthuma RA. Perceptions and behaviors of Hispanic workers: a review. J Manage Psychol (2014) 29(6):616–43. doi:10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0231

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Stallones L, Acosta MSV, Sample P, Bigelow P, Rosales M. Perspectives on safety and health among migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States and México: a qualitative field study. J Rural Health (2009) 25(2):219–25. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00221.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Faucett J, Meyers J, Tejeda D, Janowitz I, Miles J, Kabashima J. An instrument to measure musculoskeletal symptoms among immigrant Hispanic farmworkers: validation in the nursery industry. J Agric Saf Health (2001) 7(4):185–98. doi:10.13031/2013.5442

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Vela Acosta MS, Chapman P, Bigelow PL, Kennedy C, Buchan RM. Measuring success in a pesticide risk reduction program among migrant farmworkers in Colorado. Am J Ind Med (2005) 47(3):237–45. doi:10.1002/ajim.20136

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Wlodkowski RJ. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for Teaching all Adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (2011).

Google Scholar

64. Olbina S, Hinze J, Ruben M. Safety in roofing: practices of contractors that employ Hispanic workers. Prof Saf (2011) 56(4):44–52.

Google Scholar

65. Reinhardt CD, Thomson DU, Retzlaff DD, Butler B, Valles J. Bilingual, digital, audio-visual training modules improve technical knowledge of feedlot and dairy workers. Online J Rural Res Policy (2010) 5(7):1–9. doi:10.4148/ojrrp.v5i7.266

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Elkind PD, Pitts K, Ybarra SL. Theater as a mechanism for increasing farm health and safety knowledge. Am J Ind Med (2002) 42(S2):28–35. doi:10.1002/ajim.10053

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Hovey JD, Booker V, Seligman LD. Using theatrical presentations as a means of disseminating knowledge of HIV/AIDS risk factors to migrant farmworkers: an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Informate program. J Immigr Minor Health (2007) 9(2):147–56. doi:10.1007/s10903-006-9023-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Anger WK, Stupfel J, Ammerman T, Tamulinas A, Bodner T, Rohlman DS. The suitability of computer-based training for workers with limited formal education: a case study from the US agricultural sector. Int J Train Dev (2006) 10(4):269–84. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2006.00260.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Anger WK, Patterson L, Fuchs M, Will LL, Rohlman DS. Learning and recall of worker protection standard (WPS) training in vineyard workers. J Agromedicine (2009) 14(3):336–44. doi:10.1080/10599240903042057

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Evia C. Localizing and designing computer-based safety training solutions for Hispanic construction workers. J Constr Eng Manag (2011) 137(6):452–9. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000313

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Perla M, Iman E, Campos L, Perkins A, Liebman AK, Miller ME, et al. Agricultural occupational health and safety perspectives among Latino-American youth. J Agromedicine (2015) 20(2):167–77. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2015.1010064

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Burke MJ, Sarpy SA, Smith-Crowe K, Chan-Serafin S, Salvador RO, Islam G. Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. Am J Public Health (2006) 96(2):315–24. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Román-Muñiz IN, Van Metre D, Hirst H, Garry F. Training Spanish-speaking livestock workers: theory and practice. Bovine Pract (2004) 38(2):122–25.

Google Scholar

74. Román-Muñiz IN, Van Metre DC, Garry FB, Smith R, editors. Dairy worker training experiences. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners; 2007 Sept 20-22. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: American Association of Bovine Practitioners (2007).

Google Scholar

75. Menzel NN, Shrestha PP. Social marketing to plan a fall prevention program for Latino construction workers. Am J Ind Med (2012) 55(8):729–35. doi:10.1002/ajim.22038

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Shrestha P, Menzel N. Hispanic construction workers and assertiveness training. Work (2014) 49(3):517–22. doi:10.3233/WOR-131728

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Menzel NN, Gutierrez AP. Latino worker perceptions of construction risks. Am J Ind Med (2010) 53(2):179–87. doi:10.1002/ajim.20735

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Quandt SA, Grzywacz JG, Talton JW, Trejo G, Tapia J, D’Agostino RB, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of a lay health promoter-led, community-based participatory pesticide safety intervention with farmworker families. Health Promot Pract (2013) 14(3):425–32. doi:10.1177/1524839912459652

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

79. McCauley L, Runkle JD, Samples J, Williams B, Muniz JF, Semple M, et al. Oregon indigenous farmworkers: results of promotor intervention on pesticide knowledge and organophosphate metabolite levels. J Occup Environ Med (2013) 55(10):1164–70. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31829b28e4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Monaghan PF, Bryant CA, McDermott RJ, Forst LS, Luque JS, Contreras RB. Adoption of safety eyewear among citrus harvesters in rural Florida. J Immigr Minor Health (2012) 14(3):460–6. doi:10.1007/s10903-011-9484-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Bush DE, Wilmsen C, Sasaki T, Barton-Antonio D, Steege AL, Chang C. Evaluation of a pilot promotora program for Latino forest workers in southern Oregon. Am J Ind Med (2014) 57(7):788–99. doi:10.1002/ajim.22347

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Marín A, Carrillo L, Arcury TA, Grzywacz JG, Coates ML, Quandt SA. Ethnographic evaluation of a lay health promoter program to reduce occupational injuries among Latino poultry processing workers. Public Health Rep (2009) 124(Suppl 1):36–43.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

83. Ochsner M, Marshall EG, Martino C, Pabelón MC, Kimmel L, Rostran D. Beyond the classroom: a case study of immigrant safety liaisons in residential construction. New Solut (2012) 22(3):365–86. doi:10.2190/NS.22.3.h

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Grossman R, Salas E. The transfer of training: what really matters. Int J Train Dev (2011) 15(2):103–20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Gutierrez-Solano C, Ceballos-Marquez A, Schukken Y. Bilingual Trainings for Milkers in New York State: A Success for Quality Milk. Udder Health Commun. (2011). p. 191–6.

Google Scholar

86. Taylor PJ, Russ-Eft DF, Chan DW. A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. J Appl Psychol (2005) 90(4):692–709. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Burke LA, Hutchins HM. Training transfer: an integrative literature review. Hum Resource Dev Rev (2007) 6(3):263–96. doi:10.1177/1534484307303035

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Kraiger K. Perspectives on training and development. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ, Weiner IB, editors. Handbook of Psychology: Volume 12, Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (2003). p. 171–92.

Google Scholar

89. Erskine R, Martinez R, Contreras G. Cultural lag: a new challenge for mastitis control on dairy farms in the United States. J Dairy Sci (2015) 98(11):8240–4. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9386

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Acosta-Leon AL, Grote BP, Salem S, Daraiseh N. Risk factors associated with adverse health and safety outcomes in the US Hispanic workforce. Theor Issues Ergon Sci (2006) 7(3):299–310. doi:10.1080/14639220500090695

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Jorgensen E, Sokas RK, Nickels L, Gao W, Gittleman JL. An English/Spanish safety climate scale for construction workers. Am J Ind Med (2007) 50(6):438–42. doi:10.1002/ajim.20457

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

92. Flynn MA. Safety and the diverse workforce: lessons from NIOSH’s work with Latino immigrants. Prof Saf (2014) 59(6):52–7.

Google Scholar

93. Murphy DJ. Fundamental challenges to agricultural safety and health. In: Murphy DJ, editor. Looking Beneath the Surface of Agricultural Safety and Health. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Association Executives (2003). p. 27–42.

Google Scholar

94. Frechtling J, Mark M, Rog D, Thomas V, Frierson H, Hood S, et al. The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (2010).

Google Scholar

95. Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2008).

Google Scholar

96. Roucan-Kane M. Key facts and key resources for program evaluation. J Ext (2008) 46(1):1TOT2.

Google Scholar

97. McNamara C. Field Guide to Nonprofit Program Design, Marketing and Evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting (2006).

Google Scholar

98. Harrington D, Materna B, Vannoy J, Scholz P. Conducting effective tailgate trainings. Health Promot Pract (2009) 10(3):359–69. doi:10.1177/1524839907307885

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

99. Lipscomb HJ, Pompeii LA, Myers DJ, Schoenfisch AL, Dement JM. Systematic reviews of workplace injury interventions: what are we missing? Med Lav (2008) 100(4):247–57.

Google Scholar

100. Ahonen EQ, Zanoni J, Forst L, Ochsner M, Kimmel L, Martino C, et al. Evaluating goals in worker health protection using a participatory design and an evaluation checklist. New Solut (2014) 23(4):537–60. doi:10.2190/NS.23.4.b

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

101. Tovar-Aguilar JA, Monaghan PF, Bryant CA, Esposito A, Wade M, Ruiz O, et al. Improving eye safety in citrus harvest crews through the acceptance of personal protective equipment, community-based participatory research, social marketing, and community health workers. J Agromedicine (2014) 19(2):107–16. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2014.884397

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

102. Ahonen EQ, Benavides FG, Benach J. Immigrant populations, work and health: a systematic literature review. Scand J Work Environ Health (2007) 33(2):96–104. doi:10.5271/sjweh.1112

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

103. Hagevoort GR, Douphrate DI, Reynolds SJ. A review of health and safety leadership and managerial practices on modern dairy farms. J Agromedicine (2013) 18(3):265–73. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2013.796905

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

104. Arcury TA, Marín A, Snively BM, Hernández-Pelletier M, Quandt SA. Reducing farmworker residential pesticide exposure: evaluation of a lay health advisor intervention. Health Promot Pract (2009) 10(3):447–55. doi:10.1177/1524839907301409

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

105. Liebman AK, Wiggins MF, Fraser C, Levin J, Sidebottom J, Arcury TA. Occupational health policy and immigrant workers in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector. Am J Ind Med (2013) 56(8):975–84. doi:10.1002/ajim.22190

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

106. Arcury TA, Quandt SA. Delivery of health services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Annu Rev Public Health (2007) 28:345–63. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102106

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

107. Nguyen HT, Quandt SA, Grzywacz JG, Chen H, Galván L, Kitner-Triolo MH, et al. Stress and cognitive function in Latino farmworkers. Am J Ind Med (2012) 55(8):707–13. doi:10.1002/ajim.22035

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

108. Sokas RK, Levy BS, Wegman DH, Baron SL. Recognizing and Preventing Occupational and Environmental Disease and Injury. New York: Oxford University Press (2011).

Google Scholar

109. Canales AR, Arbelaez M, Vasquez E, Aveiga F, Strong K, Walters R, et al. Exploring training needs and development of construction language courses for American supervisors and Hispanic craft workers. J Constr Eng Manag (2009) 135(5):387–96. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:5(387)

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

110. Roelofs C, Sprague-Martinez L, Brunette M, Azaroff L. A qualitative investigation of Hispanic construction worker perspectives on factors impacting worksite safety and risk. Environ Health (2011) 10:84. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-84

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

111. Viveros-Guzmán A, Gertler M. Latino farmworkers in Saskatchewan: language barriers and health and safety. J Agromedicine (2015) 20(3):341–8. doi:10.1080/1059924X.2015.1048400

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: dairy industry, immigrant Latino/a workers, occupational safety and health, health education, safety training

Citation: Menger LM, Rosecrance J, Stallones L and Roman-Muniz IN (2016) A Guide to the Design of Occupational Safety and Health Training for Immigrant, Latino/a Dairy Workers. Front. Public Health 4:282. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00282

Received: 29 February 2016; Accepted: 08 December 2016;
Published: 23 December 2016

Edited by:

How-Ran Guo, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

Reviewed by:

Sok King Ong, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam
Gabriele Giorgi, European University of Rome, Italy

Copyright: © 2016 Menger, Rosecrance, Stallones and Roman-Muniz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lauren M. Menger, lauren.menger@colostate.edu