Search

Objective: Data from South Asia indicate that for 15%–20% of suicide attempts, pesticides are purchased from shops; otherwise, pesticides are obtained from an individual's house or nearby environment. We aimed to investigate the difference between individuals who directly purchase pesticides from shops for suicide attempts and suicide deaths versus those related to accessing the pesticides from an individual's house or nearby environment. Methods: We conducted two comparative studies in rural Sri Lanka: (1) non‐fatal shop cases (n = 50) were survivors of self‐poisoning with pesticides who ingested the pesticides after purchasing them from a shop; non‐fatal domestic cases (n = 192) were survivors who accessed pesticides from their house or nearby environment. (2) fatal shop cases (n = 50) were individuals who died after ingesting pesticides they purchased for the act; fatal domestic cases (n = 102) were patients who died after ingesting pesticides they accessed at house or nearby environment. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the characteristics which distinguished between the shop and domestic cases. Results: Data indicate that 20.7% and 32.9% of individuals who used pesticides for suicide attempts and suicide deaths had purchased them from shops, respectively. Being a non‐farmer was the main distinguishing characteristic of shop cases: adjusted odds ratios (AOR) 8.9, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.2–24.4 for non‐fatal shop cases, and AOR 4.0, 95% CI 1.5–10.6 for fatal shop cases. Non‐fatal shop cases also had higher suicide intent (AOR 3.0, CI 1.0–8.9), and ingesting an insecticide (AOR 4.8, CI 1.8–1.0–8.9) than non‐fatal domestic cases. Conclusion: A high suicide intent of individuals who purchase pesticides for the event explains the high proportion of such fatal cases. Such high suicide intent makes the prevention implications difficult to spell out for those individuals who purchase pesticides for self‐poisoning. However, our findings are valuable for clinicians to assess pesticide poisoning cases in hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In South Asia, up to one in five individuals who ingest pesticides for self-poisoning and survive purchased them from a shop immediately prior to the event. Thus far, no research has taken place to determine whether interventions implemented through the pesticide sellers might be acceptable or effective, despite the hundreds of thousands of such risk purchases each year. We aimed to investigate factors associated with purchasing pesticides for self-poisoning in Sri Lanka.Methods: We used a case-control study. Cases (n = 50) were individuals who ingested pesticides after purchasing them for the act, and controls (n = 200) were customers who bought pesticides but did not use them for self-harm. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess socio-demographic and purchase-specific risk factors.Results: Alcohol intoxication (adjusted odds ratios [AOR] 36.5, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.7-783.4) and being a non-farmer AOR 13.3, 95% CI 1.8-99.6 were the main distinguishing factors when purchasing pesticides for self-poisoning. The positive predictive values were 93.3% (95% CI 68.0-99.8%) and 88.2% (95% CI 72.5-96.7%), respectively. One and/or other of these factors characterised 72.0% of cases but only 2.5% controls.Conclusion: While results need to be interpreted cautiously, sales restrictions to prevent alcohol-intoxicated persons and non-farmers purchasing pesticides for self-poisoning may be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pesticide self-poisoning is now considered one of the two most common methods of suicide worldwide. Encouraging safe storage of pesticides is one particular approach aimed at reducing pesticide self-poisoning. CropLife Sri Lanka (the local association of pesticide manufacturers), with the aid of the Department of Agriculture, distributed lockable in-house pesticide storage boxes free of charge to a farming community in a rural district of Sri Lanka. Padlocks were not provided with the boxes. These storage boxes were distributed to the farmers without prior education. The authors carried out a cross-sectional follow-up survey to assess the usage of boxes at 7 months after distribution. In an inspection of a sample of 239 box recipients’ households, 142 households stored pesticides in the provided box at the time of survey. Among them, only 42 (42/142, 29.65%) households had locked the box; the remaining households (100/142, 70.4%) had not locked the box. A simple hand over of in-house pesticide storage boxes without awareness/education results in poor use of boxes. Additionally, providing in-house storage boxes may encourage farmers to store pesticides in and around houses and, if they are not locked, may lead to unplanned adverse effects. [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]