AgrAbility NTW McGill QOLIndianapolis, IN

November 9, 201111:15-12:00

By Robert J. Fetsch, et al. Extension Specialist, Professor Emeritus & Director, Colorado AgrAbility Project,

Human Development & Family Studies

Colorado State UniversityAANTWMcGillQOL11.0911 (Rev. 11.0211)

Increasing Our AgrAbility Clients’ Quality of Life Levels—What Works? (Panel Discussion)

By Robert J. Fetsch (CSU), Sheila Simmons (KU), Vicki Janish (UW),

Vincent Luke (CSU/Goodwill Denver), Kirk Ballin (ESVA), Bob Aherin (UIL),

Inetta Fluharty (WVU),Sharry Nielsen (UN),& Tina Little (CSU)

Our AgrAbility Mission

The AgrAbility Mission is to enhance and protect quality of life and preserve livelihoods. It’s about supporting and promoting growth and independence. Ultimately it’s about hope.

Source: National AgrAbility Project. (2011). It’s about hope [DVD]. Author: Purdue University.

Brief Review of the Literature on the MQOL

• Meyer and Fetsch (2006) reported the impacts of AgrAbility on 618 clients from 8 states.

• Today’s report is on the second multi-state AgrAbility study with 98 farmers and ranchers with disabilities.

Source: Meyer, R. H., & Fetsch, R. J. (2006). National AgrAbility Project impact on farmers and ranchers with disabilities. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 12(4), 275-291.

History of National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee

• Early 2006—Kathryn Pereira, Evaluation Specialist NAP U of WI, invited all SRAP’s to join in an AgrAbility evaluation study.

• The National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee (NAEC) met approximately bi-monthly (2007-Present) via teleconference/face-to-face (N = 6-25 participants/meeting).

History of National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee

• Who is an AgrAbility Client? An AgrAbility client is an individual with a disability engaged in production agriculture as an owner/operator, family member, or employee who has received professional services from AgrAbility project staff during an on-site visit.

History of National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee

• 5 Questions:– Do our AgrAbility clients increase their QOL?– Are our AgrAbility clients more able to live on, operate,

and manage their farms/ranches if they choose?– Are our group mean scores the same as those from the

population group’s mean scores?– Is the McGill QOL Survey sensitive to the effects of

AgrAbility information, education, & service?– Who else will join us?

History of National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee

• Six SRAP’s conducted a four-year study to answer the first 4 questions (June 2007-July 2011).

• McGill QOL—CO, KS, NE, VA, WI & WV

Measures Used in CO, KS, NE, VA, WI, & WV Study

• McGill Quality of Life Survey & AgrAbility Independent Living & Operating Survey (ILOS)

• NAP Demographic Data

History of National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee

• CO, KS, NE, VA, WI & WV obtained IRB approval from their Land-Grant Universities.

• As of 7/13/11 NE & WV have pre-survey data only.

• Today we will focus on the results of the 98 closed cases with matched pre-post survey data from CO, KS, VA, & WI.

Protocol• Procedure—CO, KS, VA, and WI mailed

each new client the Pre-Survey, a cover letter, McGill Pre-Survey, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope with an invitation to complete and return it.

Protocol• Participants were given the choice of

completing the survey themselves or of having the items read aloud by the AgrAbility team member. No one was coerced to complete and return their surveys.

History of National AgrAbility Evaluation Committee

• By July 13, 2011 CO, KS, VA, & WI entered their 98 matched pre-post-survey data into Excel files and e-mailed them to CO for entering and analyzing.– KS 49– WI 31– CO 15– VA 3 – Total 98

Who Were the Participants in the Study? (N = 98)

• All 98 clients completed AgrAbility.• 70 (71%) were male; 27 (28%) were female.

1 did not report (1%).• 66 (67%) were new; 24 (25%) were on-

going; five (5%) were re-opened; and one (1%) was closed in current grant year.

Who Were the Participants in the Study? (N = 98)

• Ages ranged from 11 to 95 (M = 57.6; SD = 18.7; N = 94).

• For U.S. farmers and ranchers, the average age was 57.1 in 2007.*

• Original disability occurred 1934-2010.*Source: Retrieved April 27, 2004 from http://nass.usda.gov/census/

What Was the Range and Average Length of Time with AgrAbility?

• The amount of time spent with AgrAbility ranged from 1 to 38 months (M = 11.8; SD = 6.1; N = 81).

What Was the Origin of the Disability? (N=98)

Who Were the Participants in the Study? (N=98)

What Was the Work Status of the Participants in the Study at Pre-Survey? (N=98)

Primary Agricultural Operation of the Participants in the Study at Pre-Survey (N=98)

Primary Disabilities (N=98)

What Were the Purposes of This Four-Year Study? (N = 98)

• To determine whether the McGill QOL and the AgrAbility ILOS were sensitive to the effects of AgrAbility.

• To determine pre-post service changes in clients’ QOL levels and in their ability to live on, operate, and manage their farms/ranches.

Q: Do Our AgrAbility Clients Increase Their QOL?A: ?

0123456789

10

Pre-Survey Post-Survey

MQOL Total Score(N=83)***

McGill Pre- Post-Survey Changes(Total Score)

Q: Do Our AgrAbility Clients Increase Their QOL?A: Yes, they improve on the Total QOL Scale plus on all 6 subscales!

Q: Are Our AgrAbility Clients More Able to Live on, Operate, and Manage Their Farms/Ranches if They Choose?A: ?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pre-Survey Post-Survey

Manage farm(N=92)***

Complete chores(N=94)*

Operate machinery(N=94)***

AgrAbility Independent Living & Operating Survey (ILOS)(Manage Farm, Complete Chores, & Operate Machinery)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pre-Survey Post-Survey

Live in home onfarm/ranch (N=94)N.S.Access workspaces(N=93) N.S.

Modify machinery(N=93)***

AgrAbility ILOS(Live in Home, Access Workspaces & Modify Machinery)

AgrAbility provided me with info/recommendations I used:

Yes No

To do my farm/ranch work better/more easily than before AgrAbility? (N=58)

85% 16%

To continue farming/ranching in part/whole, without help I would not have been able to do so? (N=56)

77% 23%

To continue to live in my home independently? (N=57)

54% 46%

To continue to live on the farm/ranch, but successfully take up another occupation? (N=56)

7% 93%

AgrAbility did not provide me with help. (N=56)

7% 93%

I am able to: SA/A Neither D/SD NA

Complete chores (N=95) 80% 6% 9% 5%

Operate machinery (N=95) 63% 6% 5% 25%

Manage farm/ranch (N=95) 77% 7% 3% 13%

Access workspaces (N=94) 84% 9% 4% 3%

Live in my home on the farm/ranch (N=95)

92% 3% 3% 2%

Change/modify machinery (N=94)

48% 15% 6% 31%

Receive useful assistance info (N=95)

84% 5% 6% 4%

Follow thru on AgrAbility recommendations (N=93)

86% 8% 5% 1%

The Top Reasons Clients Were Unable to Follow AgrAbility Recommendations (N = 31)

1. Unable to obtain funding (n = 7/30 = 23%)2. Health conditions changed (n = 6/31 = 19%)3. My financial situation changed (n = 3/30 = 10%)4. Chose a different career (n = 1/30 = 3%)5. Recommendations did not work for me (n = 1/30

= 3%)

Q: Are Our AgrAbility Clients More Able to Live on, Operate, and Manage Their Farms/Ranches if They Choose?A: Yes!

Q: What do these 4 SRAPs do well?A: They have pre-post survey data that show statistically significant increases (p < .001) in:-QOL levels-”I am able to manage my farm/ranch.”-”I am able to operate machinery.”-”I am able to change or modify my machinery in order to accommodate my needs.”

Q: What do the results say we can improve?A: We can do more as we assist farm and ranch families:-”to complete chores on my farm/ranch” (p <.05) (M=2.463.81).-”to access workspaces on my farm/ranch” (N.S.) (M=3.033.90).

Q: Is the McGill QOL Survey Sensitive to the Effects of AgrAbility Information, Education, & Service?A: Yes!

Why Join Us?1. Document your project’s effectiveness at

increasing QOL and ILOS.2. Enhance your chances of receiving funding

next time with empirical evidence of your SRAP’s quality and effectiveness.

3. Increase your chances for outside funding by demonstrating your accountability.

4. Contribute to AgrAbility’s Mission.

Our AgrAbility Mission

The AgrAbility Mission is to enhance and protect quality of life and preserve livelihoods. It’s about supporting and promoting growth and independence. Ultimately it’s about hope.

Source: National AgrAbility Project. (2011). It’s about hope [DVD]. Author: Purdue University.

Won’t You Join Us? Here’s how:1. Send an email to

robert.fetsch@colostate.edu.2. Seek IRB approval from your Land-Grant

University.3. Study and use the same protocol.4. Adapt CO to __ on pp. 1-2 & mail.5. Enter your data into an Excel file that we

will provide, proof perfectly & email to me.

Thank you very much!

Increasing Our AgrAbility Clients’ Quality of Life Levels—What Works? (Panel Discussion)

By Robert J. Fetsch (CSU), Sheila Simmons (KU), Vicki Janish (UW),

Vincent Luke (CSU/Goodwill Denver), Kirk Ballin (ESVA), Bob Aherin (UIL),

Inetta Fluharty (WVU),Sharry Nielsen (UN),& Tina Little (CSU)

&

Panel Discussion (KS, WI, IL, VA, WV, NE, CO)

1. What works in our state to increase AgrAbility clients’ QOL and ILOS levels?

2. How can other SRAP’s increase their clients’ QOL levels?

Thank you very much!