| Title |
Social-cognitive determinants of the tick check: a cross-sectional study on self-protective behavior in combatting Lyme disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4908-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy van der Heijden, Bob C. Mulder, P. Marijn Poortvliet, Arnold J. H. van Vliet |
| Abstract |
Performing a tick check after visiting nature is considered the most important preventive measure to avoid contracting Lyme disease. Checking the body for ticks after visiting nature is the only measure that can fully guarantee whether one has been bitten by a tick and provides the opportunity to remove the tick as soon as possible, thereby greatly reducing the chance of contracting Lyme disease. However, compliance to performing the tick check is low. In addition, most previous studies on determinants of preventive measures to avoid Lyme disease lack a clear definition and/or operationalization of the term "preventive measures". Those that do distinguish multiple behaviors including the tick check, fail to describe the systematic steps that should be followed in order to perform the tick check effectively. Hence, the purpose of this study was to identify determinants of systematically performing the tick check, based on social cognitive theory. A cross-sectional self-administered survey questionnaire was filled out online by 508 respondents (Mage = 51.7, SD = 16.0; 50.2% men; 86.4% daily or weekly nature visitors). Bivariate correlations and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify associations between socio-cognitive determinants (i.e. concepts related to humans' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to perform certain behavior), and the tick check, and between socio-cognitive determinants and proximal goal to do the tick check. The full regression model explained 28% of the variance in doing the tick check. Results showed that performing the tick check was associated with proximal goal (β = .23, p < 0.01), self-efficacy (β = .22, p < 0.01), self-evaluative outcome expectations (β = .21, p < 0.01), descriptive norm (β = .16, p < 0.01), and experience (β = .13, p < 0.01). Our study is among the first to examine the determinants of systematic performance of the tick check, using an extended version of social cognitive theory to identify determinants. Based on the results, a number of practical recommendations can be made to promote the performance of the tick check. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 29% |
| Unknown | 26 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2021.
All research outputs
#15,485,255
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,440
of 14,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,396
of 438,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#130
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.