↓ Skip to main content

Employers´ paradoxical views about temporary foreign migrant workers´ health: a qualitative study in rural farms in Southern Ontario

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Employers´ paradoxical views about temporary foreign migrant workers´ health: a qualitative study in rural farms in Southern Ontario
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12939-014-0065-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miya Narushima, Ana Lourdes Sanchez

Abstract

BackgroundThe province of Ontario hosts nearly a half of Canada¿s temporary foreign migrant farm workers (MFWs). Despite the essential role played by MFWs in the economic prosperity of the region, a growing body of research suggests that the workers¿ occupational safety and health are substandard, and often neglected by employers. This study thus explores farm owners¿ perceptions about MFWs occupational safety and general health, and their attitudes towards health promotion for their employees.MethodsUsing modified grounded theory approach, we collected data through in-depth individual interviews with farm owners employing MFWs in southern Ontario, Canada. Data were analyzed following three steps (open, axial, and selective coding) to identify thematic patterns and relationships. Nine employers or their representatives were interviewed.ResultsFour major overarching categories were identified: employers¿ dependence on MFWs; their fragmented view of occupational safety and health; their blurring of the boundaries between the work and personal lives of the MFWs on their farms; and their reluctance to implement health promotion programs. The interaction of these categories suggests the complex social processes through which employers come to hold these paradoxical attitudes towards workers¿ safety and health. There is a fundamental contradiction between what employers considered public versus personal. Despite employers¿ preference to separate MFWs¿ workplace safety from personal health issues, due to the fact that workers live within their employers' property, workers' private life becomes public making their personal health a business-related concern. Farmers¿ conflicting views, combined with a lack of support from governing bodies, hold back timely implementation of health promotion activities in the workplace.ConclusionsIn order to address the needs of MFWs in a more integrated manner, an ecological view of health, which includes the social and psychological determinants of health, by employers is necessary. Employers and other stakeholders should work collaboratively to find a common ground, harnessing expertise and resources to develop more community-based approaches. Further research and continuous dialogue are needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 28 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2014.
All research outputs
#4,165,576
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#785
of 1,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,690
of 238,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.