Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27287731›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2016

Comparing the effect of a leaflet and a movie in preventing tick bites and Lyme disease in The Netherlands.

Desirée Jacqueline Mathieu Angélique Beaujean, Rik Crutzen, Fedor Gassner, Caroline Ameling, Albert Wong, James Everard van Steenbergen, Dirk Ruwaard

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Desirée Jacqueline Mathieu Angélique BeaujeanCentre for Infectiou Disease Control National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. desiree.beaujean@rivm.nl.
Rik CrutzenDepartment of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Fedor GassnerCentre for Infectiou Disease Control National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Caroline AmelingDepartment of Environmental Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Albert WongDepartment of Statistics, Informatics, and Mathematical Modeling, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
James Everard van SteenbergenCentre for Infectiou Disease Control National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Dirk RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLyme disease (LD) has become the most common vector borne illness in the Northern hemisphere. Prevention relies predominantly on fostering protective behaviors (e.g., avoiding tick areas, using protective clothing and repellent, and doing routine tick checks post-exposure). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness (in terms of knowledge, perceived severity and susceptibility, self-efficacy, response efficacy, intention, and behavior over time) and appreciation of a leaflet and a movie as tools for informing the public in the Netherlands about ticks and LD protective behaviors.

methodsParticipants (1,677 at t1 and 361 extra at t2) were members of a representative Internet panel (adults aged 18 years and above). A four group randomized controlled design was used to test the effect of an information leaflet and a movie (two intervention groups), compared to a control group and a follow-up only control group. Data were collected over two periods: July 15-29, 2013 (t1) and at follow-up 4 weeks later, August 16-31, 2013 (t2).

resultsPost-intervention results show all respondents in all groups possess good general basic knowledge of ticks and LD. Respondents in both the leaflet and movie groups knew more than respondents in the control group, and had greater awareness of best practices after a tick bite. Intention to perform protective behavior in future was stronger among respondents in the intervention groups. While respondents generally appreciated both the movie and the leaflet, they found the movie ran too long. Follow-up revealed no lasting positive effects from either the leaflet or the movie.

conclusionsOur results suggest that both the movie and the leaflet are valued and effective intervention tools for improving knowledge about tick bites and strengthening self-efficacy and intentions to perform protective behavior against ticks and LD . Achieving lasting effects, however, calls for more action.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSelf EfficacyAdolescentAdultAgedAnimalsFemaleHumansInternetLyme DiseaseMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPamphletsProtective ClothingTick BitesCommunication interventionsEducational interventionsLyme diseaseTicks

Identifiers

PMID27287731
PMCPMC4902941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.