Skip to main content

Table 4 Participant characteristics by number of reported heat-related illness symptoms, and results from bivariate mixed modelsa

From: The effect of the participatory heat education and awareness tools (HEAT) intervention on agricultural worker physiological heat strain: results from a parallel, comparison, group randomized study

  

Number of symptoms reported

Coefficientsb (standard errors) and Z valuesc from bivariate mixed models

Characteristic

Total (N = 76a, 554 observations)

0 (382 obs)

1 (126 obs)

2+ (46 obs)

Age (years)

 Mean (SD)

41.7 (15.3)

39.6 (15.1)

45.6 (14.9)

48.8 (13.9)

0.04 (0.02), 2.25

Sex

 Female

183 (100%)

112 (61.2%)

50 (27.3%)

21 (11.5%)

ref

 Male

371 (100%)

270 (72.8%)

76 (20.5%)

25 (6.7%)

−0.89 (0.55), −1.62

Years working in agriculture in the US

  < 1

241 (100%)

196 (81.3%)

38 (15.8%)

7 (2.9%)

ref

 1–5

53 (100%)

42 (79.2%)

7 (13.2%)

4 (7.5%)

0.25 (0.86), 0.29

 6–9

41 (100%)

28 (68.3%)

13 (31.7%)

0 (0.0%)

0.79 (0.93), 0.85

 10 or more

219 (100%)

116 (53.0%)

68 (31.1%)

35 (16.0%)

1.83 (0.53), 3.45

H-2A Status

 H-2A worker

238 (100%)

189 (79.4%)

42 (17.6%)

7 (3.0%)

ref

 Not H-2A

316 (100%)

193 (61.1%)

84 (26.6%)

39 (12.3%)

1.34 (0.54), 2.46

Company

 Small

90 (100%)

65 (72.2%)

20 (22.2%)

5 (5.6%)

ref

 Large - 1

238 (100%)

189 (79.4%)

42 (17.6%)

7 (2.9%)

−0.60 (0.56), −1.07

 Large - 2

226 (100%)

128 (56.6%)

64 (28.3%)

34 (15.0%)

1.07 (0.67), 1.60

Distance to toilet

 3 min or less

383 (100%)

278 (72.6%)

83 (21.7%)

22 (5.7%)

ref

  > 3 min

147 (100%)

81 (55.1%)

42 (28.6%)

24 (16.3%)

1.33 (0.55), 2.41

 Missing

24 (100%)

23 (95.8%)

1 (4.2%)

0 (0.0%)

–

Previous HRI training

 No

140 (100%)

106 (75.7%)

27 (19.3%)

7 (5.2%)

ref

 Yes

397 (100%)

264 (66.5%)

94 (23.7%)

39 (9.8%)

0.29 (0.61), 0.46

 Missing

17 (100%)

12 (70.6%)

5 (29.4%)

0 (0.0%)

–

Effort level

 Low/medium-low

349 (100%)

227 (65.0%)

83 (23.8%)

39 (11.2%)

ref

 Medium-high

91 (100%)

69 (75.8%)

18 (19.8%)

4 (4.4%)

−1.03 (0.52), −1.98

 High

100 (100%)

74 (74.0%)

23 (23.0%)

3 (3.0%)

−0.17 (0.37), −0.47

 Missing

14 (100%)

12 (85.7%)

2 (14.3%)

0 (0.0%)

–

Mean of weekly max Heat Indexd

 Mean (SD)

83.4 (5.1)

83.3 (5.1)

83.1 (5.4)

85.3 (4.1)

0.06 (0.02), 2.38

Cooling opportunities of outside work/air conditioning at home

 No

198 (100%)

158 (79.8%)

29 (14.6%)

11 (5.6%)

Ref

 Yes

356 (100%)

224 (62.9%)

97 (27.2%)

35 (9.8%)

1.08 (0.55), 1.97

Previous heat-related illness

 No

495 (100%)

342 (69.1%)

113 (22.8%)

40 (8.1%)

Ref

 Yes

7 (100%)

3 (42.9%)

4 (57.1%)

0 (0.0%)

1.27 (2.06), 0.61

 Missing

52 (100%)

37 (71.2%)

9 (17.3%)

6 (11.5%)

–

Body mass index (kg/m2)e

 Mean (SD)

29.8 (5.0)

29.7 (5.2)

30.3 (4.9)

28.7 (4.1)

0.01 (0.05), 0.18

  1. aTwo participants excluded because of missing weather data
  2. bCoefficients are interpreted as: compared to reference category (for categorical variables), or for a one unit increase (continuous variables), there is change in the log odds of 1+ or 2+ symptoms by the value of the coefficient
  3. cZ-thresholds for nominally significant effects at p-values of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 are +/− 1.64, 2.58, and 3.29, respectively, and indicated in bold
  4. dWe selected the closest AWN weather stations within 8000 m of known work locations. Values from included weather stations were averaged. For each participant, we trimmed data to work start and end times and to the reported days working in the past week
  5. eFour observations missing
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us