nabu.science
MethodologyAboutContact

 

  • Snapshot
  • Key Claims
  • Strengths & Limitations
  • Commentary
  • From the Authors
  • Author Note / Field Feedback
  • Dimension breakdown
  • Readiness
Report #NBU-1A56CA6D·Framework v5.9·Pipeline v0.4·Evaluated 11 Sept 2026·OECD: 3.2 Public health and health services·Subfield: Plant Science·Basis: Full text·Type: Cross-sectional study

Vulnerable groups and protective habits associated with the number of symptoms caused by pesticide application in Kratie, Cambodia: a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

Kobashi et al.Kobashi, Srou, Tsubokura et al.·2022·Journal of rural medicine : JRM·10.2185/jrm.2022-019 ↗

Primary claim

Pesticide-protective behaviors significantly correlated with fewer symptoms.

Tentative · cross-sectional self-report and a low-reliability behavior measure leave direction and behavior-specific effects uncertain
In brief

Cambodia-specific evidence identifies vulnerable farmworkers and candidate protective habits, but cross-sectional confounding prevents the behavior associations from supporting intervention claims.

ReliabilityCaveats4 of 4 checks completeRead the 2 entries ↓
Fragile — the claim's weakest requirement is that the effect exists at all. Experimental. Every point below is traceable to a quoted passage, but this forecast has not yet been validated against known replication outcomes.
Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to identify pesticide poisoning symptoms and related protective habits to effectively prevent pesticide poisoning among farmworkers in Kratie, Cambodia, where pesticide poisoning is an urgent public health problem. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire survey analyzing social demographics, number of symptoms, and protective behavior regarding pesticide application was conducted in Kratie Province from January 25 to 31, 2021. In total, 210 farmworkers completed the survey. The effects of social demographics and pesticide-protective behavioral scores on the number of symptoms were investigated using multivariable regression analysis. Results: The observed number of symptoms was 1.16 times higher among women (P=0.004), increased with the duration of work, and decreased with age. In addition, we identified five significant pesticide-protective behaviors: 1) preparing using gloves, 2) using protective equipment, 3) avoiding wiping sweat, 4) avoiding leaking, and 5) resting when feeling ill. Pesticide-protective behaviors tended to decrease with the duration of working years in the low-education group (B=-0.04, SE=0.01), whereas no association was observed in the high-education group (B=0.01, SE=0.01). Conclusion: Pesticide-protective behaviors significantly correlated with fewer symptoms. The female and aging groups required continuous special education or instructions for implementing pesticide-protective actions, especially the aforementioned five protective actions.

Key Claims

Primary finding · Tentative

Pesticide-protective behaviors significantly correlated with fewer symptoms.

Fragile — the claim's weakest requirement is that the effect exists at all. Experimental. Every point below is traceable to a quoted passage, but this forecast has not yet been validated against known replication outcomes.

cross-sectional self-report and a low-reliability behavior measure leave direction and behavior-specific effects uncertain

Abstract, Conclusion
Quote verified
Secondary · Supported

The observed number of symptoms was 1.16 times higher among women (P=0.004), increased with the duration of work, and decreased with age.

adjusted Table 6 estimates support the associations, though cross-sectional sampling limits broader inference

Abstract; Results, Table 6
Quote verified
Secondary · Tentative

Pesticide-protective behaviors tended to decrease with the duration of working years in the low-education group, whereas no association was observed in the high-education group.

a stratified cross-sectional model supports the pattern, but the underlying behavior measure has unconfirmed reliability

Abstract; Results, Table 5
Quote verified
Secondary · Tentative

we identified five significant pesticide-protective behaviors: 1) preparing using gloves, 2) using protective equipment, 3) avoiding wiping sweat, 4) avoiding leaking, and 5) resting when feeling ill.

Table 6 significance is offset by low scale reliability, unmeasured confounding, and uncertain temporal direction

Abstract; Results, Table 6
Quote verified

Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.

Strengths · Limitations

Strengths

#contribution

Cambodia-specific occupational health evidence

The study documents symptom patterns and associated factors in 210 farmworkers from five rural districts of Kratie, adding evidence from an under-studied setting.

↳ Materials and Methods, Study Design and Participants; Results, Tables 1–2

#positioning

Transparent reporting of major limitations

The Discussion explicitly identifies convenience sampling, limited generalizability, missing pesticide-type and socioeconomic data, and the behavioral measure’s Cronbach’s alpha of 0.4519.

↳ Discussion, limitations paragraph

#methodological rigour

Clearly reported adjusted association model

Table 6 presents adjusted incidence-rate ratios, standard errors, and P values for demographic variables and all nine behavioral scores, making the central analysis readily inspectable.

↳ Materials and Methods, Data Analysis; Results, Table 6

Limitations

#methodological rigour

Behavior measure has low reliability

The reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.4519 means the reliability of the pesticide-protective behavior measure was not confirmed, materially weakening confidence in the five specific behaviors highlighted.

↳ Discussion, limitations paragraph

#reporting

Cross-sectional associations receive causal framing

Behaviors and symptoms were measured concurrently, yet the Discussion describes behaviors as effective in reducing pesticide effects and as significantly suppressing symptoms. Temporal direction and reverse causation remain unresolved.

↳ Materials and Methods, Procedure and Outcomes; Discussion, paragraph 3

#methodological rigour

Key confounders remain unmeasured

The adjusted model lacks pesticide type, exposure intensity, economic conditions, and baseline health information, limiting interpretation of the behavior–symptom associations.

↳ Materials and Methods, Data Analysis; Discussion, limitations paragraph

Does this match your read? Add your assessment ↓

Nabu Commentary

The paper makes a useful geographic extension by documenting symptoms and behavioral correlates among farmworkers in Kratie. Its descriptive reporting and adjusted estimates are clear, and the Discussion candidly lists several important limitations. The central behavior–symptom inference is nevertheless substantially constrained by concurrent self-report, unmeasured exposure and health factors, convenience sampling, and the behavior measure’s Cronbach’s alpha of 0.4519. Describing the behaviors as effective and symptom-suppressing therefore goes beyond what the cross-sectional design establishes.

Check another paper

Free · About 5 minutes · Research preview

Author Note / Field Feedback

Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.

Are you an author of this paper?

Dimension breakdown

Study Quality

Limited2.6

Confidence medium
Contribution
3.1

The study adds localized evidence on pesticide-related symptoms and behavioral correlates among 210 farmworkers in an under-studied Cambodian province. The advance is incremental because the demographic and behavioral patterns largely extend prior regional findings rather than resolve a major uncertainty.

Introduction; Results, Tables 5–6; Discussion, paragraphs 2–3

“These findings are consistent with those of a previous study in Southeast Asia”

Methodological Rigour
2.0

The cross-sectional questionnaire and adjusted Poisson model support descriptive associations, but concurrent self-report, major unmeasured exposure and health factors, convenience sampling, and low scale reliability substantially constrain behavior–symptom inference. Causal wording in the Discussion further exceeds the design’s temporal and confounding control.

Materials and Methods, Procedure and Data Analysis; Table 6; Discussion, paragraphs 3 and limitations

“five of the nine behaviors... significantly suppressed the number of pesticide poisoning symptoms”

Reporting
3.4

The paper follows a clear progression from objectives and measures to regression results and limitations. Precision is reduced when the Discussion describes cross-sectional associations as behaviors that were effective in reducing effects and suppressing symptoms.

Abstract; Materials and Methods; Results, Tables 1–6; Discussion, paragraph 3

“preventive behaviors that were effective in reducing the health effects of pesticides”

Positioning
2.9

The paper compares its findings with prior Southeast Asian and Chinese work and provides six specific limitations. The low Cronbach’s alpha is disclosed but not carried through to the certainty of the five behavior-specific conclusions and education recommendations.

Discussion, paragraphs 2–6; Conclusions

“the reliability of pesticide-protective behavior was not confirmed”

Reliability

Caveats4 of 4 checks


Internal CoherenceNoted

The paper contains a survey-date inconsistency and reports low internal consistency for the protective-behavior measure. These issues require caution but do not indicate fabrication or invalidate the descriptive symptom findings.

Research ConductClean

Ethics approval, informed consent, funding, and the funder’s stated non-involvement are declared. No text-grounded research-conduct concern was identified.

Flags: 2 declared / 5 total

Reference IntegrityNoted

1 of 1 checkable references verified

16 references in manuscript 2 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable 13 could not be checked — not the same as no match found

References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.

Post-Publication RecordClean

No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).

Last checked: 17 Oct 2026

Sources: Crossref (incl. Retraction Watch) ✓

Readiness

Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.

Mechanistic

The work remains an observational field survey and does not evaluate an education program, protective intervention, or operational implementation process. Substantial further testing is required before the recommendations become actionable.

Materials and Methods, Study Design and Participants; Conclusions

“further research is required to investigate objective health effects and self-reported symptoms”

Report an issue →

AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.

Keep reading

Related evaluations

Other papers Nabu has evaluated blind, starting with the same field.

  1. Graphasing: phasing diploid genome assembly graphs with single-cell strand sequencing

    Henglin, Ghareghani, Harvey, et al. · 2024 · Computer and information sciences

    Primary claim

    Graphasing performs comparably to trio phasing in contiguity, phasing accuracy, and assembly quality

    Supported
    Study quality
    Sound3.7
    Reliability
    No concerns
  2. Verkko2 integrates proximity-ligation data with long-read De Bruijn graphs for efficient telomere-to-telomere genome assembly, phasing, and scaffolding

    Antipov, Rautiainen, Nurk, et al. · 2025 · Computer and information sciences

    Primary claim

    Together, these changes increase the number of telomere-to-telomere scaffolds by twofold, reduce runtime by fourfold, and improve assembly correctness.

    Well-supported
    Study quality
    Strong3.9
    Reliability
    No concerns
  3. Logarithmic critical slowing down in complex systems: from statics to dynamics

    L. Leuzzi, T. Rizzo · 2024 · Physical Sciences

    Study quality
    Strong4.0
    Reliability
    Caveats

How the rubric works →