Falls from Tractors in Older Age: Risky Behaviors in a Group of Swedish and Italian Farmers Over 65

  • Federica Caffaro
  • Peter Lundqvist
  • Margherita Micheletti CremascoEmail author
  • Eva Göransson
  • Stefan Pinzke
  • Kerstin Nilsson
  • Eugenio Cavallo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)


The frequent mounting and dismounting the tractor required by many farming operations increases the risk of falls, particularly for older farmers. The present study explored the risk factors related to tractor ingress and egress in older farmers from two countries with a different tradition in terms of safety culture: Sweden and Italy. Eighteen male farmers aged 65 + (8 from Skåne region, southern Sweden, and 10 from Piedmont region, northwestern Italy) were observed while mounting and dismounting their most used tractor, to investigate the routine behaviors adopted and to identify possible sources of risk of fall. The presence of three critical behaviors was recorded: the maintenance of three-point contact with the machine when entering and exiting the cab; facing the cab and the use of the last step when exiting. Farmers were also interviewed about their health status, attitudes toward safety, and perceived risks while performing the task. The results showed that similar unsafe behaviors were adopted by most of both Swedish and Italian participants; in particular, none of the farmers got off the tractor by facing the cab. Older farmers from both countries referred to age and previous experience as the major protective factors against falls, without acknowledging that new risks can rise from the age-related changes in their motor skills. The results raised some considerations about the need to develop targeted elderly-centered solutions to support the correct mounting/dismounting behaviors, both in the design of the machines and in information campaigns and training courses, which may have a cross-cultural validity.


Agricultural machinery Aging Slips and falls 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Andrews GR (2001) Demographic and health issues in rural aging: a global perspective. J Rural Health 4:323–327Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koolhaas W, Van Der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW, Brouwner S (2012) Towards a sustainable healthy working life: association between chronological age, functional age and work outcomes. Eur J Pub Health 22(3):424–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell L, Hawranik P, Strain L (2002) Age-related physiological changes: considerations for older farmers’ performance of agricultural tasks. University of Manitoba, Centre of Aging, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Myers JR, Layne LA, Marsh SM (2009) Injuries and fatalities to U.S. farmers and farm workers 55 years and older. Am J Ind Med 52(3):185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Piirtola M, Era P (2006) Force platform measurements as predictors of falls among older people - a review. Gerontology 52(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leskinen T, Suutarinen J, Väänänen J, Lehtela J, Haapala H, Plaketti P (2002) A pilot study on safety of movement practices on access paths of mobile machinery. Saf Sci 40(7–8):675–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan LJ, Mansfield NJ (2014) A survey of expert opinion on the effects of occupational exposures to trunk rotation and whole-body vibration. Ergonomics 57(4):563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caffaro F, Roccato M, Micheletti Cremasco M, Cavallo E (2017) Falls from agricultural machinery: risk factors related to work experience, worked hours, and operators’ behavior. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 60(1):20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amshoff SK, Reed DB (2005) Health, work, and safety of farmers ages 50 and older. Geriatr Nurs 26(5):304–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLaughlin AC, Fletcher LM, Sprufera JF (2009) The aging farmer: human factors research needs in agricultural work. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 53(18), pp 1230–1234. Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bornefalk A, Yndeheim O (2004) Can we rely on the elderly? Report SOU 2004:44. Government Offices of Sweden, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Spangenberg S, Baarts C, Dyreborg J, Jensen L, Kines P, Mikkelsen KL (2003) Factors contributing to the differences in work related injury rates between Danish and Swedish construction workers. Saf Sci 41(6):517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lundqvist P, Svennefelt CA (2014) Swedish strategies for health and safety in agriculture: a coordinated multiagency approach. Work 49(1):33–37Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eichener V (1997) Effective European problem-solving: lessons from the regulation of occupational safety and environmental protection. J Eur Public Policy 4(4):591–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nilsson K, Pinzke S, Lundqvist P (2010) Occupational injuries to senior farmers in Sweden. J Agric Saf Health 16(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinzke S, Nilsson K, Lundqvist P (2014) Farm tractors on Swedish public roads–age-related perspectives on police reported incidents and injuries. Work 49(1):39–49Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pinzke S, Lundqvist P (2007) Occupational accidents in Swedish agriculture. Agric Eng Res 13:159–165Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Kroemer KH (2005) ‘Extra-ordinary’ ergonomics: how to accommodate small and big persons, the disabled and elderly, expectant mothers, and children. Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (eds) (1992) A guide to task analysis: the task analysis working group. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ware JE Jr (1992) Sherbourne CD (1992), The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, Jørgensen K (1987) Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon 18(3):233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biddle EA, Keane PR (2012) Action learning: a new method to increase Tractor Rollover Protective Structure (ROPS) adoption. J Agromedicine 17(4):398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewis CH (1982) Using the “Thinking Aloud” method in cognitive interface design (Technical report). RC-9265. IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights NYGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    HSE. Accessed 05 Oct 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Agricultural and Earthmoving Machines (IMAMOTER)National Research Council of Italy (CNR)TurinItaly
  2. 2.Department of Work Science, Business Economics and Environmental PsychologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden
  3. 3.Department of Life Sciences and Systems BiologyUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  4. 4.Division of Occupational and Environmental MedicineLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations