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]

Objectives: Approximately 10 000 people die from suicide annually in Bangladesh, many from pesticide poisoning. We aimed to estimate financial costs to patients and health services of treating patients with self-poisoning.Methods: Data on direct costs to families, sources of funds for treatment and family wealth were collected prospectively over a one-month period in 2016 at the tertiary Chittagong Medical College Hospital, Bangladesh. Aggregate operational costs to the government were calculated using annual budget, bed occupancy and length-of-stay data.Results: Agrochemicals were the most common substances ingested (58.8%). Median duration of stay and of illness was 2 and 5 days, respectively. Median total cost to patients was conservatively estimated at US$ 98.40, highest in agrochemical poisoning (US$ 179.50), with the greatest cost due to medicines and equipment. Misdiagnosis as organophosphorus poisoning in 17.0% of agrochemical cases resulted in increased cost to patients. Only 51.9% of patients had indicators of wealth; 78.1% borrowed money to cover costs. Conservatively estimated median healthcare costs (US$ 21.30 per patient) were markedly lower than costs to patients.Conclusions: Cost to patients of treating a case of agrochemical poisoning was approximately three times the cost of one month's essential items basket. Incorrect diagnosis at admission costs families substantial sums of money and increased length of stay; it costs the national government an estimated US$ 80 428.80 annually. Widespread access to a list of pesticides used in self-poisoning plus greater focus on training doctors to better manage different forms of agrochemical poisoning should reduce the financial burden to patients and healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deliberate self-poisoning with agricultural pesticides is the commonest means of suicide in rural Asia. It is mostly impulsive and facilitated by easy access to pesticides. The aim of this large observational study was to investigate the immediate source of pesticides used for self-harm to help inform suicide prevention strategies such as reducing domestic access to pesticides. Methods: The study was conducted in a district hospital serving an agricultural region of Sri Lanka. Patients who had self-poisoned with pesticides and were admitted to the adult medical wards were interviewed by study doctors following initial resuscitation to identify the source of pesticides they have ingested. Results: Of the 669 patients included in the analysis, 425 (63.5%) were male; the median age was 26 (IQR 20-36). In 511 (76%) cases, the pesticides had been stored either inside or immediately outside the house; among this group only eight patients obtained pesticides that were kept in a locked container. Ten percent (n = 67) of the patients used pesticides stored in the field while 14% (n = 91) purchased pesticides from shops within a few hours of the episode. The most common reasons for choosing the particular pesticide for self-harm were its easy accessibility (n = 311, 46%) or its popularity as a suicide agent in their village (n = 290, 43%). Conclusion: Three quarters of people who ingested pesticides in acts of self-harm used products that were available within the home or in close proximity; relatively few patients purchased the pesticide for the act. The study highlights the importance of reducing the accessibility of toxic pesticides in the domestic environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self-poisoning with pesticides is the cause of an estimated 300,000 deaths annually in rural Asia. The great majority of these deaths are from impulsive acts of self-harm using pesticides that are readily available in the home. The secure storage of pesticides under lock has been emphasized as a possible answer to the problem. This aspect, however, has been poorly researched. In this paper, we report on the design and use, in rural Sri Lanka, of a variety of different lockable storage devices.Methods: Following a baseline survey of pesticide storage practices, randomly selected households received a pesticide safe storage device. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase a total of 200 households in two villages were provided with in-house safe storage devices and two follow-up surveys were conducted seven and 24 months after distribution. The results of the seven month post-distribution survey have already been published. In the second phase, a further 168 households were selected in two additional villages and given a choice between an in-house and an in-field storage device and a follow-up survey conducted seven months after distribution. Both follow-up surveys aimed to assess the use of the device, obtain detailed user feedback on the different storage designs, and to identify problems faced with safeguarding the key. Twelve focus group discussions were held with representatives of households that received a storage device to derive from the community qualitative feedback on the design requirements for such devices.Results: One hundred and sixty one of the 200 households selected during the first phase were using pesticides at the time of the follow-up survey, 24 months after distribution. Of these 161 households 89 (55%) had the pesticides stored and locked in the provided device. Among the 168 households that were given a choice between an in-house and an in-field storage device 156 used pesticides at the time of survey and of these 103 (66%) selected in-field storage devices and 34% chose in-house storage devices. Of the 156 households, 106 (68%) stored all pesticides in a locked storage device at the time of the follow-up survey seven months after distribution. The majority of households that received an in-field storage device chose to install the device within their compound rather than in the field as they were concerned about the possibility of theft. The preferred design of the storage device was influenced by a number of occupational factors such as land size, crop patterns, types and the quantity of pesticides used. The presence of termites, perceived safety, material used to manufacture the device and ease of location influenced their choice. The study revealed that it was difficult to keep the key to the device hidden from children; and that the person in charge of the key would have easy access to the stored poison.Conclusion: This study confirms the high acceptance of lockable storage devices by the community although the use of the device reduced over time. A large proportion of pesticides stored within the compound after the introduction of the device may have implications for accessibility to pesticides in the domestic environment. The ability of other household members, including children, to easily find the key is also worrying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]