Effectiveness of educational interventions to promote safe handling of pesticides: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Appropriate use of pesticides minimises harm to human health and the environment. Despite regulations and restrictions on use, however, many farmers still use highly toxic pesticides in ways that endanger their health and the environment. Many pesticide users know little about the health effects of these chemicals or how to handle them safely. A systematic review will collate evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions among farmers regarding health hazards and the safe handling of pesticides. The review aims to summarise the impact of educational interventions on knowledge and reported behaviour of pesticide users and to identify characteristics of more effective interventions. Methods and analysis We will search MEDLINE, LILACS, AGRICOLA, IMBIOMED, SciELO, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase databases and from the grey literature, Open Grey and WHO to identify potentially eligible studies. We will consider randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the impact of educational interventions among farmers about the safe use of pesticides. We will include studies published between 2000 and 2024 in English, Spanish and Portuguese and consider outcomes of knowledge about pesticide health effects, knowledge about safe handling of pesticides and reported behaviour when handling pesticides. A meta-analysis of eligible studies, using a random-effects model, will estimate the impact of educational interventions on the outcomes as the difference between the intervention group and the control group at the last point of measurement. We will assess heterogeneity using the χ 2 test and I 2 statistic, conduct a sensitivity analysis by removing each study from the meta-analysis and evaluate publication bias with a funnel plot and Begg and Egger tests. Subgroup analyses will examine the impact of different kinds of educational interventions. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as no information from individuals are collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated at relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023413028.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".