Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jun 10:16:495.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3146-2.

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

Desirée Jacqueline Mathieu Angélique Beaujean  1 , Rik Crutzen  2 , Fedor Gassner  3 , Caroline Ameling  4 , Albert Wong  5 , James Everard van Steenbergen  3   6 , Dirk Ruwaard  7
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Desirée Jacqueline Mathieu Angélique Beaujean et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Lyme 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.

Methods: Participants (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).

Results: Post-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.

Conclusions: Our 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.

Keywords: Communication interventions; Educational interventions; Lyme disease; Ticks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Differences in mean sumscores on knowledge per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Differences in mean sumscores on knowledge about behavior in case of tick bite per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Differences in knowledge about health monitoring time per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Differences in recognizing symptoms per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Differences in mean Likert scores on self efficacy per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Differences in mean Likert scores on perceived efficacy per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Differences in mean Likert scores on intention per group (leaflet, movie or control) on t1 (immediately after intervention) and t2 (after 1 month)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Hofhuis A, Harms M, van den Wijngaard C, Sprong H, et al. Continuing increase of tick bites and Lyme disease between 1994 and 2009. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6(1):69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.09.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith R, Takkinen J, Editorial Team Lyme borreliosis: Europe wide coordinated surveillance and action needed? Eurosurveillance. 2006;25:2. - PubMed
    1. den Boon S, Schellekens JF, Schouls LM, Suijkerbuijk AW, et al. Verdubbeling van het aantal consulten voor tekenbeten en Lyme-borreliose in de huisartsenpraktijk in Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004;148(14):665–70. - PubMed
    1. Sprong H, Trentelman J, Seemann I, Grubhoffer L, et al. ANTIDotE: anti-tick vaccines to prevent tick-borne diseases in Europe. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:77. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-77. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Poland GA. Prevention of Lyme Disease: a review of the evidence. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:13–24. doi: 10.4065/76.7.713. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types