ReviewBMC public health2026
Are we asking the right questions? A dive into the knowledge, attitudes, and practices literature on behavior change in tick bite prevention.
Review in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTickborne diseases (TBDs) pose significant public health challenges within the United States. Public education is an important TBD intervention if it leads to attitudinal or behavior change. Public health campaigns seeking to improve adoption of tick bite prevention practices among at-risk communities often use knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) surveys to understand individual-level factors that influence behavioral decisions. Surveys that identify opportunities and barriers can inform tailored interventions to address specific needs. In addition, grounding community assessments in behavioral theory may enhance intervention effectiveness by integrating known drivers of behavior. A collaborative team supported through the Northeast Regional Center for Excellence in Vector-Borne Diseases: Training & Evaluation Center reviewed published TBD-KAP surveys to determine the extent to which they incorporate theories of behavior change.
methodsThrough a literature search we identified 36 articles reporting TBD-KAP survey results in the US, Canada, and Europe, which included the original KAP survey questionnaires. Individual question items (n = 1016) were extracted and mapped to theoretical constructs from the Health Belief Model and separate domains of acceptability and affordability. Given the KAP focus, categories of knowledge and personal experience were also included.
resultsMost question items aligned with indirect behavior modifiers such as TBD knowledge and exposure history (n = 299), respondent behaviors and practices (n = 216), or respondent demographics (n = 125). Risk Perceptions (Perceived Susceptibility and Severity) were the most commonly represented theoretical mediators of behavior change (n = 134), followed by Acceptability (n = 96), Perceived Benefits (n = 84), Self-Efficacy (n = 66), Perceived Barriers (n = 50), and Affordability (n = 32). Only 11 question items mapped to Cues to Action.
conclusionsOur results show that most of the examined TBD-KAP survey questions addressed components of respondent knowledge and practices, and comparatively fewer question items addressed attitudes and rationale. Increasing the focus of future TBD-KAP assessments to measure perceived benefits, barriers and cost, and cues to action may help public health programs identify the extent to which TBD prevention strategies are viewed as effective and identify additional motivators of behavior that can complement risk perceptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.