Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31829150›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Who is afraid of ticks and tick-borne diseases? Results from a cross-sectional survey in Scandinavia.

Daniel Slunge, Solveig Jore, Karen Angeliki Krogfelt, Martin Tugwell Jepsen, Anders Boman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Perception of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases Worldwide.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Food-Borne Transmission of Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus-Spread, Consequences, and Prophylaxis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  16. Burden of Tick-Borne Encephalitis, Sweden.Emerging infectious diseases · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Daniel SlungeGothenburg Centre for Sustainable Development, GMV, University of Gothenburg, Box 170, 40530, Gothenburg, Sweden. daniel.slunge@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6219-3376
Solveig JoreNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Karen Angeliki KrogfeltStatens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7536-3453
Martin Tugwell JepsenStatens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-4589
Anders BomanDepartment of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

Interreg 20200422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Scandinavia, the distribution of ticks is expanding and tick-borne diseases constitute growing health risks. While the probability of getting a tick-borne disease after a tick bite is low, the health impacts can be large. This, as well as other characteristics of these diseases make tick-related risks difficult for laypeople to assess and perceived risk may differ substantially from actual risk. Understanding risk perceptions is important since it is the perceived risk, rather than actual risk, that determine behaviour and even more so for new and emerging risks. The aim of this study is to investigate knowledge and risk perceptions related to tick bites and the tick-borne diseases Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE). By analysing risk perceptions and knowledge, the study helps inform the development of public health strategies in response to the increasing incidence of these diseases in Scandinavia.

methodsTwo thousand, six hundred sixty-eight respondents in Denmark, Norway and Sweden answered an online questionnaire with 48 questions, including 7 questions on risk perceptions and 9 knowledge questions. Chi-squared tests were used to analyse statistical differences between country sub-samples, gender and age groups. A multivariate regression model was used to analyse factors associated with risk perceptions.

resultsRisk perceptions were on average high in comparison with scientific estimates, with respondents grossly overrating the probability of contracting LB or TBE if bitten by a tick. Also, the average perceived seriousness of a single tick bite and of getting LB or TBE was high. Knowledge on the other hand was low, especially among men and the youngest age group (18-29 years). Higher levels of knowledge about tick-borne diseases were associated with lower perceived seriousness of tick bites and LB and higher perceived seriousness of TBE. Also, having been diagnosed with LB was negatively associated with the perceived seriousness of LB.

conclusionsOur results indicate that informing about ticks and tick-borne diseases would be a relevant public health strategy as it could make risk perceptions better aligned with actual risk. Should the TBE virus spread further in Denmark and Norway, increasing knowledge about TBE vaccination would be especially important.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthTicksAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentScandinavian and Nordic CountriesSurveys and QuestionnairesTick BitesIxodes ricinusKnowledgeLyme borreliosisRisk perceptionTickTick-borne encephalitis (TBE)

Identifiers

PMID31829150
PMCPMC6907266

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.