Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27852247›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Education on tick bite and Lyme borreliosis prevention, aimed at schoolchildren in the Netherlands: comparing the effects of an online educational video game versus a leaflet or no intervention.

D J M A Beaujean, F Gassner, A Wong, J E Steenbergen, R Crutzen, D Ruwaard

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward Ticks and Tickborne Disease among Healthcare Professionals Working in Schools in New York and Maryland.The Journal of school nursing : the official publication of the National Association of School Nurses · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

6 authors.

D J M A BeaujeanNational 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.
F GassnerNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
A WongDepartment of Statistics, Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
J E SteenbergenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
R CrutzenDepartment of Health Promotion, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, Maastricht, MD, The Netherlands.
D RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, Maastricht, MD, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLyme disease or Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick-borne disease both in the United States and Europe. Children, in particular, are at high risk of contracting LB. Since child-specific educational tools on ticks, tick bites and LB are lacking, we developed an online educational video game. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of an online educational video game versus a newly developed leaflet aimed to improve prevention of tick bites and LB among Dutch schoolchildren.

methodsA total of 887 children, aged 9-13 years and attending the two final years of primary schooling, were recruited from 25 primary schools in June and July 2012. They were assigned through cluster randomization to one of three intervention groups: 'game' (22.4%), 'leaflet' (35.6%) or 'control' (41.9%). Prior to and directly following intervention, the children were asked to complete a short questionnaire. The main outcome measures were knowledge, perception (perceived susceptibility and importance) and preventive behavior in relation to tick bites and LB. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze the data.

resultsIn the game group, the leaflet group and the control group, knowledge about ticks and tick bites improved significantly. The game was also an effective tool for improving preventive behavior; the frequency of checking for ticks increased significantly. However, there were no significant differences in knowledge improvement between the interventions. The game outperformed the leaflet in terms of improving preventive behavior, whereas the frequency of tick checks increased significantly. But this frequency didn't increase more than in the control group.

conclusionsThe positive knowledge effects observed in the control group suggests the presence of a mere measurement effect related to completion of the questionnaire. The game did not outperform the leaflet or control group on all outcome measures. Therefore, the game may be of value as a complementary role, in addition to other media, in child-specific public health education programs on ticks and LB. This trial was retrospectively registered on October 21, 2016 (trial registration number: ISRCTN15142369).

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSchool Health ServicesAnimalsChildChild, PreschoolConsumer Health InformationFemaleHumansLyme DiseaseMaleNetherlandsPamphletsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesTick BitesVideo GamesEducational video gameKnowledgeLeafletLyme borreliosisLyme diseasePerceptionPreventionSchoolchildrenTick bitesTick checkTicks

Identifiers

PMID27852247
PMCPMC5112636

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.