Assessment of pesticide safety knowledge and practices in Vietnam: A cross-sectional study of smallholder farmers in the Mekong Delta

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of Vietnam with the Can Tho province marked in dark blue (left) Thoi Lai District, with the three study communes Trường Xuân, Trường Xuân B, and Thới Tân (right).

Table 1. Agricultural educational interventions identified as official educational programs in this study.

Abbreviation	Name	Organization
1M5R	One Must Do—Five Reductions	International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the World Bank
3I3R	Three Reductions—Three Increases	Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)
GAP	Global Good Agricultural Practice	Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
VietGAP	Vietnamese Good Agricultural Practice	MARD
IPM	Integrated Pest Management	Not applicable

Table 2. Study population overview depicting mean with the standard deviation (SD) and percentage of participants.

Characteristic		Trường Xuân (n = 168)	Trường Xuân B (n = 136)	Thới Tân (n = 96)	p-value	Total (n = 400)
Age (years)	Mean	48.8	47.6	53.2	0.003	49.5
	(SD)	(12.2)	(12.2)	(12.6)
Men	Percent	92.9	97.1	88.5	0.038	93.3
Married or cohabitation	Percent	96.4	96.3	97.9	0.760	96.8
Years in commune	Mean	41.0	44.7	45.8	0.066	43.4
	(SD)	(15.2)	(13.2)	(15.4)
Able to read and write	Percent	98.8	98.5	94.8	0.217	98.0
Completed no or primary school	Percent	45.3	33.8	42.7	0.001	40.8
Completed secondary school	Percent	41.0	47.8	45.8	0.048	44.5
Completed high school or higher	Percent	13.7	18.4	11.5	0.054	14.8
Farm size (ha)	Mean	1.7	2.0	1.3	0.003	1.7
	(SD)	(1.4)	(1.6)	(0.8)
Years of farming experience	Mean	23.2	22.4	27.8	0.005	24.0
	(SD)	(11.0)	(14.4)	(14.4)
Any educational program in farming	Percent	64.9	67.7	67.7	0.843	66.5
Type of official educational program:	Percent
IPM		39.3	42.6	29.2	0.103	38.0
1M5R		27.4	22.1	17.7	0.186	23.3
Global GAP		3.0	0.0	2.2	0.139	1.8
VietGAP		7.1	5.1	6.3	0.775	6.3
3R3I		34.5	45.6	43.8	0.112	40.1
Average income per month per person in a household (in Mio. VND)	Mean	2.2	2.8	2.6	0.459	2.5
	(SD)	(1.4)	(3.1)	(2.4)

Table 3. Pesticides investigated by the survey*.

Type of pesticide	Active ingredient	Commercial names asked for	WHO classification	% used it	% do not know	% farmers mixing it of farmers using it	Popularity 1 = rarely to 5 = highly popular)
Insecticide	Emamectin Benzoate	Angun 5WG, EMA Gold	Class II	16.5	42.0	37.9	3
Insecticide	Fenobucarb	Virtako 40 WG, Bassa, Jetan	Class II	45.8	21.0	41.0	3
Insecticide	Hexaconazole	Anvil 5SC	Class III	66.5	9.8	33.5	4
Insecticide	Pymetrocine	Chess 15WG	Class III	30.0	26.5	19.2	3
Insecticide	Spinetoram	Radiant 60SC	Unlikely hazard	15.3	41.0	45.9	2
Insecticide	Spirotetramat	Movento	Class III	4.3	37.8	17.6	2
Insecticide	Triflumezopyrim	DuPont (Pexena) 106 SC	Class III	29.0	24.0	25.9	5
Insecticide + small pests	Chlorpyrifos Ethyl + Cypermethrin	Dragon 585EC, Tungcydan	(Class II )+ Class II	22.3	35.0	29.2	4
Insecticide + small pests	Fipronil	Regent 800 WP, AnPyral 800 WG	Class II	43.8	21.3	24.0	1
Fungicide	Azoxystrobin Difenoconazole	Help	Unlikely hazard + Class II	37.3	24.5	29.5	4
Fungicide	Mancozeb + Metalaxyl-M	Mancozeb, Ridomil Gold, Dithane	Unlikely hazard + Class II	14.8	37.0	20.3	3
Fungicide	Propinerb	Antracol	Unlikely hazard	64.3	12.5	46.7	4
Fungicide	Tricyclazole + Propiconazole	Filia 252SE	Class II + Class II	47.3	16.8	26.5	5
Fungicide	Trifloxystrobin + Tebuconazole	Nativo 750 WG	Unlikely hazard + Class II	34.8	23.3	35.3	4
Herbicide	Butachor + Propanil	Cantanil	Class III + Class II	61.8	9.5	10.5	5
Herbicide	Pretilachlor	Sofit	Unlikely hazard	74.3	4.8	6.7	5

* With information on the type of pesticide, the active ingredient, the commercial name used in the survey, the WHO hazard classification, the percentage of participants who have used it during the past year, the percentage of participants who did not know if they have used it during the past year, the percentage of participants who have mixed it with other pesticides, and the popularity of the product according to the local authorities.

Figure 2. Access and use of specific PPE not related to sun protection.

Table 4. Latent classes derived from the latent class analysis for knowledge and practices.

Class	Number of participants	%
High knowledge	273	68.4
Low knowledge	126	31.6
Poor practices	129	32.3
Intermediate practices	230	57.7
Good practices	40	10.0

Table 5. Mutually adjusted associations of demographics and farming specific factors with pesticide safety knowledge (high vs. low)*.

	Knowledge high vs. low
	OR	95% CI	p-value
Official educational programs:
No	1.00
Yes	1.87	1.13–3.12	0.015
Education:
Primary school	1.00
Secondary school	2.17	1.30–3.64	0.003
Minimum of high school	3.84	1.70–9.45	0.002
Source of pesticide safety knowledge:
Not learn from govt. extension workers	1.00
Learn from govt. extension workers	2.31	1.14–4.98	0.025
Not learn from peers	1.00
Learn from peers	3.58	2.18–6.00	<0.001
Farm size, Ha:	1.22	1.01–1.50	0.052
Gender:
Female	1.00
Male	2.53	1.04–6.35	0.042
Age, years:	1.00	0.98–1.02	0.762

* Logistic regression analysis of pesticide safety knowledge based on the adjustment set identified with the DAG and additional adjustment for the commune cluster.

Table 6. Mutually adjusted associations of pesticide safety knowledge with pesticide practice (intermediate vs. unsafe and good vs. unsafe)*.

	Practices intermediate vs. poor			Practices good vs. poor
Variables	OR	95% CI	p-value	OR	95% CI	p-value
Knowledge:
Low	1.00			1.00
High	1.65	1.02–2.66	0.040	8.96	2.58–31.12	<0.001
Monthly income (Mio. VND):	1.01	0.98–1.03	0.610	0.96	0.91–1.02	0.192
Farm size (Ha):	1.39	1.11–1.74	0.004	1.55	1.14–2.10	0.005
Gender:
Female	1.00			1
Male	0.77	0.32–1.88	0.572	1.87	0.21–16.49	0.574
Age, years:	0.98	0.97–1.00	0.109	1.00	0.97–1.03	0.850
Communes:
Truong Xuan	1.00			1.00
Truong Xuan B	2.50	1.45–4.32	0.0009	2.23	0.97–5.06	0.059
Thoi Tan	2.39	1.33–4.27	0.003	0.80	0.26–2.49	0.702

* Multinomial logistic regression analysis of pesticide practices based on the adjustment set identified with the DAG and additional adjustment for commune.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in an anonymized form from the corresponding author [AG] upon reasonable request.