QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURE FOR PENNSYLVANIA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS WITH A DISABILITY
Open Access
- Author:
- Fetzer, Linda M
- Graduate Program:
- Agricultural and Extension Education
- Degree:
- Master of Science
- Document Type:
- Master Thesis
- Date of Defense:
- July 12, 2010
- Committee Members:
- Connie Devine Baggett, Thesis Advisor/Co-Advisor
Connie Devine Baggett, Thesis Advisor/Co-Advisor - Keywords:
- quality of life
disability
farmers - Abstract:
- ABSTRACT Quality of Life Measure for Pennsylvania Agricultural Producers with a Disability This research study examined the McGill Quality of Life (MQOL) scores for two groups of people that have worked with the AgrAbility Project in Pennsylvania. There is limited information about quality of life and agricultural producers. This study is the first to use intervention and non-participant groups to see if there is a difference between the McGill Quality of Life (MQOL) total score between those that received full AgrAbility services and those that received minimal information. The McGill QOL questionnaire was mailed to all 181 participants utilizing a three-part modified Dillman method with a cover letter, McGill survey and postage-paid return addressed envelope. A response rate of 66.0% or 66 surveys were returned in the intervention group and 33.3% response rate or 27 returned surveys in the non-participant group. No significant differences were found between the intervention and non-participant groups based upon age and gender. Significant differences were found between the two groups related to farm operation, work status, and primary disability. The MQOL single-item mean score for the non-participant group was 5.79 and the score for the intervention group was 6.38 on the eleven point scale. No significant difference was found (t = -.960; p > .05) between the groups based upon this statement. Overall MQOL total scores were based upon a single-item physical question and four subscales. No significant difference (t = .082; p > .05) was found between the groups. One of the main findings was that the intervention group, which had received AgrAbility services; had a higher rate (95.5%) than the non-participant group (66.6%) in regards to remaining in production agriculture at either full or part time level. A significant difference was found between the two groups in their ability to operate machinery (t = -3.24; p < .05) and their ability to change or modify their machinery (t = -2.64; p < .05). Statements that were approaching significance related to completion of chores and their ability to manage their farm operation. No statistically significance difference between the groups was found regarding accessibility to their workspace and ability to live in their home. In regards to farm operations, 50 out of the 93 farms represented in this study were dairy farms. The number of dairy farmers in the intervention group was 63.6%, which is double the amount in the non-participant group (29.6%). However, dairy farming represented a much larger majority of the farm operations in the intervention group compared to the non-participant group. Dairy farming is associated with manual labor and repetitive tasks and income fluctuations due to milk prices. When comparing the MQOL total score for dairy farmers to the non-participant and intervention groups, mean scores for dairy farmers were 5.884 compared to 6.367 for non-participant and 6.248 for intervention. There was no significant difference (F = .598; p < .05) between the three groups in regards to their overall MQOL total score. Three primary disabilities that ranked in the top three for the intervention group and the top five for the non-participant group included back injury, joint injury and arthritis. These findings were expected due to the manual labor and repetitive motion tasks associated with production agriculture. In regards to physical symptoms, reoccurring themes were evident in the groups and included back-related injury or pain, general pain, problems sleeping, and tiredness. Participants were asked whether or not AgrAbility provided them with help through a “yes” or “no” question on the survey. Response rate by the intervention group was 65 out of 66 participants with 97.0% responding that AgrAbility provided them with help and 1.5% responded negatively. The non-participant group did not receive AgrAbility services and their responses were not included in these findings.