Content and readability of websites focused on agricultural safety

Early Abstract:

Background: To date, there has been no evaluation of the quality of agricultural safety websites.
Aims: To evaluate the quality of agricultural safety websites through the assessment of content, accountability and readability.
Methods: An internet search of sites was conducted using the Google and terms: ‘agri* safety’, ‘farm* safety’, and ‘farm* injury prevention’. Content was assessed using a standardised checklist evaluating the number of hazards addressed (completeness) and the average number of recommended control levels from the Hierarchy of Controls (accuracy). Accountability was assessed through the presence of JAMA benchmarks. Readability was assessed using validated scoring systems, including Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL).
Results: Of the 13 websites included in the analysis, six were categorised as government websites, four as non-profit organisation and three as professional websites. Government website content scored higher in completeness and accuracy in comparison to other website categories. Motorcycles and water bodies were infrequently addressed. The assessment of accountability revealed that most websites (69%), did not attribute their recommendations. When using FKGL scoring, only two websites (15%) met the recommendation of below Grade 8 equivalent readability.
Conclusions: There is opportunity to improve the quality of agricultural safety websites. Recommendations involve addressing more hazards and improving the use of the Hierarchy of Controls, in addition to increasing the attribution of recommendations and overall readability. Further research should evaluate other potential sources of information for farmers, such as online videos.
Keywords: agriculture, farming, information dissemination, internet, occupational exposure, safety.