Search

Background: Acute poisoning by agricultural pesticides is a well established global public health problem. Keeping pesticides under safe storage is now promoted as a potential way to reduce the number of severe poisoning cases. However, there have been no published studies documenting the feasibility of such an approach. Therefore, the objective of the study presented here was to determine community perceptions and use of in-house safe storage boxes for pesticides in rural Sri Lanka. Methods: Boxes with a lock, to be used for the in-house safe storage of pesticides, were distributed to 200 randomly selected farming households in two agricultural communities. A baseline survey determined pesticide storage practices and household characteristics prior to distribution. The selected households were encouraged to make use of the box at community meetings and during a single visit to each household one month after distribution. No further encouragement was offered. A follow-up survey assessed storage practices seven months into the project. Results: Following the distribution of the boxes the community identified a number of benefits including the protection of pesticide containers against exposure from the rain and sun and a reduced risk of theft. Data were analysed for 172 households that reported agricultural use of pesticides at follow-up. Of these, 141 (82%) kept pesticides in the house under lock against 3 (2%) at baseline. As expected, the distribution of boxes significantly reduced the number of households storing pesticides in the field, from 79 (46%) at baseline to 4 (2%) at follow-up. There was a significant increase in the number of households keeping pesticides safe from children between baseline (64%) and seven months after the distribution of boxes (89%). The same was true for adults although less pronounced with 51% at baseline and 66% at follow-up. Conclusion: The farming community appreciated the storage boxes and made storage of pesticides safer, especially for children. It seems that additional, intensive promotion is needed to ensure that pesticide boxes are locked. The introduction of in-house safe storage boxes resulted in a shift of storage into the farmer's home and away from the field and this may increase the domestic risk of impulsive self-poisoning episodes. This increased risk needs attention in future safe storage promotion projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In South Asia, up to 20% of people ingesting pesticides for self-poisoning purchase the pesticide from a shop with the sole intention of self-harm. Individuals who are intoxicated with alcohol and/or non-farmers represent 72% of such high-risk individuals. We aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of vendor-based restrictions on pesticide sales for such high-risk individuals.Methods: We conducted a pilot study in 14 (rural = 7, urban = 7) pesticide shops in Anuradhapura District of Sri Lanka. A two-hour training program was delivered to 28 pesticide vendors; the aim of the training was to help vendors recognize and respond to customers at high risk of pesticide self-poisoning. Knowledge and attitudes of vendors towards preventing access to pesticides for self-poisoning at baseline and in a three month follow-up was evaluated by questionnaire. Vendors were interviewed to explore the practice skills taught in the training and their assessment of the program.Results: The scores of knowledge and attitudes of the vendors significantly increased by 23% (95% CI 15%-32%, p < 0.001) and by 16% (95% CI 9%-23%, p < 0.001) respectively in the follow-up. Fifteen (60%) vendors reported refusing sell pesticides to a high-risk person (non-farmer or intoxicated person) in the follow-up compared to three (12%) at baseline. Vendors reported that they were aware from community feedback that they had prevented at least seven suicide attempts. On four identified occasions, vendors in urban shops had been unable to recognize the self-harming intention of customers who then ingested the pesticide. Only 2 (8%) vendors were dissatisfied with the training and 23 (92%) said they would recommend it to other vendors.Conclusions: Our study suggests that vendor-based sales restriction in regions with high rates of self-poisoning has the potential to reduce access to pesticides for self-poisoning. A large-scale study of the effectiveness and sustainability of this approach is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self-poisoning is one of the most common methods of suicide worldwide. The intentional ingestion of pesticides is the main contributor to such deaths and in many parts of rural Asia pesticide self-poisoning is a major public health problem. To inform the development of preventive measures in these settings, this study investigates small-area variation in self-poisoning incidence and its association with area-based socioeconomic and agricultural factors. Methods: Ecological analysis of intentional self-poisoning in a rural area (population 267,613) of Sri Lanka in 2002. The geographic distribution of cases was mapped to place of residence. Using administrative division (GN), median population size 1416, as unit of analysis, associations with socioeconomic and agricultural indicators were explored using negative binomial regression models. Results: The overall incidence of intentional self-poisoning in the study area was 315 per 100,000 (range: 0 - 2168 per 100,000 across GNs). Socioeconomic disadvantage, as indexed by poor housing quality (p = 0.003) and low levels of education (p < 0.001) but not unemployment (p = 0.147), was associated with a low self-poisoning incidence. Areas where a high proportion of the population worked in agriculture had low overall levels of self-poisoning (p = 0.002), but a greater proportion of episodes in these areas involved pesticides (p = 0.01). An association with extent of cultivated land was found only for non-pesticide poisoning (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Considerable small-area variation in incidence rates of intentional self-poisoning was found. The noteworthy concentration of cases in certain areas and the inverse association with socioeconomic deprivation merit attention and should be investigated using individual-level exposure data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]