Examines PPE characteristic perceptions influencing adoption intentions in rice farmers, suggesting actionable policy interventions.
Technology adoption extends beyond mere usage; it encompasses the provision of essential resources and equipment, as well as the recommendation of performance experiences. Institutions must actively address these factors to facilitate effective individual adoption. This study aimed to explore rice farmers' perceptions of personal protective equipment (PPE) characteristics and their influence on the intentions to prepare, use, and recommend PPE to fellow farmers. A survey involving 307 rice farmers in Golestan Province, northwestern Iran, was conducted to collect data. Exploratory factor analysis identified three distinct characteristics of PPE: PPE effectiveness, PPE uncomfortableness and PPE unattractiveness. Binary logistic regression analyses revealed that PPE effectiveness positively influences all three intention categories: the intention to prepare, the intention to use, and the intention to recommend PPE. In contrast, both PPE uncomfortableness and PPE unattractiveness negatively impact these intentions. Additionally, factors related to farmers' financial capacity—such as annual income, land size, and access to on-site storage—positively influence the intention to prepare PPE. Variables associated with agricultural extension and training, including interactions with extension agents and reliance on expert advice, also positively affect the intention to use PPE. Furthermore, active participation in local organizations significantly enhances the intention to recommend PPE to peers. To promote safer farming practices, agricultural policy interventions must increase awareness of PPE effectiveness. Additionally, creating financial support mechanisms to assist farmers in acquiring and developing PPE should be prioritized by policymakers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharifzadeh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: