Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by London, L.
Right arrow Articles by Bailie, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by London, L.
Right arrow Articles by Bailie, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:564-570
© International Epidemiological Association 2001


Environmental Health

Challenges for improving surveillance for pesticide poisoning: policy implications for developing countries

Leslie Londona and Ross Bailieb

a Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Anzio Rd, University of Cape Town, South Africa. E-mail: ll{at}anat.uct.ac.za
b Menzies School of Health Research and Flinders University Northern Territory Clinical School, Darwin, Australia.

Abstract

Background Surveillance is a critical public health tool for the control of pesticide poisoning. However, surveillance activities in developing countries are bedevilled by multiple problems, and inferences made from review of flawed data may lead to mistaken policy decisions.

Methods Results of intensified surveillance from an intervention project in the Western Cape Province of South Africa were compared to the pattern of poisonings reported in routine notifications to the health authorities for a control farming district and in the study district over a 5-year period preceding the study. Intensified surveillance data results were also contrasted with policy approaches based on routine notifications and on Regional Poison Centre reports.

Results Poisoning rates reported in the study area increased almost 10-fold during the intervention period. Compared to intensified surveillance, hospital and health authority sources greatly underestimate the proportion of cases due to occupational poisoning, and overestimate suicide as a proportional cause. In addition, the risks for women appear underestimated from routine notifications. Assumptions that a lack of awareness is responsible for most poisonings are not borne out by the empirical data when reporting is intensified.

Conclusions Current policy assumptions are faulty, may result in inappropriate blame being attributed to victims and, by relying on information as the main element of education, may shift responsibility onto the individual. Improvements in the surveillance system should aim to restructure the types of data collected, and facilitate intra-governmental and inter-sector collaboration. The culture of monitoring based on report writing must change to one of surveillance that leads to intervention.

Keywords Pesticide poisoning, surveillance, policy, gender, suicide, occupational poisoning, public health intervention

Accepted 20 July 2000


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
L T Lam
Childhood and adolescence poisoning in NSW, Australia: an analysis of age, sex, geographic, and poison types
Inj. Prev., December 1, 2003; 9(4): 338 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.