Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Social-cognitive determinants of the tick check: a cross-sectional study on self-protective behavior in combatting Lyme disease

Authors: Amy van der Heijden, Bob C. Mulder, P. Marijn Poortvliet, Arnold J. H. van Vliet

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The databases Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched. The search terms that were used are “preventive measures”, “protective measures”, “preventive behavior”, “protective behavior”, “tick bites”, “ticks”, “tick check”, “Lyme disease” and “determinants”. The search period included all years. The date of search was September, October and November 2015. Articles were selected as relevant for this literature study if a topic of the study was about the determinants of behavior of taking preventive measures or specifically doing a tick check to avoid tick bites and Lyme disease. In total, eleven articles were included.
 
Literature
1.
2.
Beaujean DJMA, Bults M, van Steenbergen JE, Voeten HACM. Study on public perceptions and protective behaviors regarding Lyme disease among the general public in the Netherlands: implications for prevention programs. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:225.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Hofhuis A, Harms MG, van der Giessen JWB, Sprong H, Notermans DW, van Pelt W. Ziekte van Lyme in Nederland 1994-2009. IB. 2010;21:84–7.
4.
Sprong H, Hofhuis A, Gassner F, Takken W, Frans J, van Vliet AJH, et al. Circumstantial evidence for an increase in the total number and activity of borrelia infected ixodes ricinus in the Netherlands. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:294.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Hofhuis A, Bennema S, Harms M, van Vliet AJH, Takken W, van den Wijngaard CC, et al. Decrease in tick bite consultations and stabilization of early Lyme borreliosis in the Netherlands in 2014 after 15 years of continuous increase. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:425.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Herrington JE, Campbell GL, Bailey RE, Cartter ML, Adams M, Frazier EL, et al. Predisposing determinants for individuals' Lyme disease prevention practices: Connecticut, Maine, and Montana. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:2035–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Phillips CB, Liang MH, Sangha O, Wright EA, Fossel AH, Lew RA, et al. Lyme disease and preventive behaviors in residents of Nantucket Island. Massachusetts Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:219–24.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Mowbray F, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ. Ticking all the boxes? A systematic review of education and communication interventions to prevent tick-borne disease. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012;12:817–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Davis S. Don’t let the bugs bite! A review of insect repellents: review article. Prof Nurs Today. 2014;18:21–3.
10.
Beaujean D, van Velsen L, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Maat A, van Steenbergen JE, Crutzen R. Using risk group profiles as a lightweight qualitative approach for intervention development: an example of prevention of tick bites and Lyme disease. JMIR Res Protoc. 2013;2:e45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
Hallman W, Weinstein N, Kadakia S, Chess C. Precautions taken against Lyme disease at three recreational parks in endemic areas of New Jersey. Environ Behav. 1995;27:437–53.CrossRef
13.
Herrington JE. Risk perceptions regarding ticks and Lyme disease: a national survey. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:135–40.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernández ME. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
15.
Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol. 2008;57:660–80.CrossRef
16.
Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
17.
Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998;13:623–49.CrossRef
18.
19.
Maat A, Konings F. Teek it or leave it? Onderzoek van GGD West-Brabant naar preventieve maatregelen tegen tekenbeten. IB. 2010;21:221–3.
20.
Mowbray F, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ. Predictors of protective behaviour against ticks in the UK: a mixed methods study. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:392–400.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Shadick NA, Daltroy LH, Phillips CB, Liang US, Liang MH. Determinants of tick avoidance behaviors in an endemic area for Lyme disease. Am J Prev Med. 1996;13:265–70.
22.
Aenishaenslin C, Michel P, Ravel A, Gern L, Milord F, Waaub JP, et al. Factors associated with preventive behaviors regarding Lyme disease in Canada and Switzerland: a comparative study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Gould LH, Nelson RS, Griffith KS, Hayes EB, Piesman J, Mead PS, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Lyme disease prevention among Connecticut residents, 1999-2004. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008;8:769–76.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hochbaum G, Rosenstock I, Kegels S. Health belief model. United States Public Health Service; 1952.
25.
Bandura A. Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urban T, editors. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age; 2006. p. 307–37.
26.
Poortvliet PM, Lokhorst AM. The key role of experiential uncertainty when dealing with risks: its relationships with demand for regulation and institutional trust. Risk Anal. 2016;36:1615–29.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Yarbrough SS, Braden J. Utility of health belief model as a guide for explaining or predicting breast cancer screening behaviours. J Adv Nurs. 2001;33:677–88.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Dewar DL, Lubans DR, Plotnikoff RC, Morgan PJ. Development and evaluation of social cognitive measures related to adolescent dietary behaviors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58:1015–26.CrossRef
30.
Rimal RN, Real K. Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Commun Theory. 2003;13:184–203.CrossRef
31.
32.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef
33.
Young MD, Plotnikoff RC, Collins CE, Callister R, Morgan PJ. Social cognitive theory and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2014;15:983–95.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002;57:705–17.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Sheeran P. Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2002;12:1–36.CrossRef
36.
Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol. 1999;54:493–503.CrossRef
37.
McAlister AL, Perry CL, Parcel GS. How individuals, environments, and health behaviours interact: social cognitive theory. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behaviour and health education. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 169–88.
38.
Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR. A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1991;24:201–34.CrossRef
39.
Jacobson RP, Mortensen CR, Cialdini RB. Bodies obliged and unbound: differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100:433–48.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26:136–45.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Peters GJY, Ruiter RA, Kok G. Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;7(Suppl 1):S8–S31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Beaujean DJMA, Crutzen R, Gassner F, Ameling C, Wong A, van Steenbergen JE, Ruwaard D. Comparing the effect of a leaflet and a movie in preventing tick bites and Lyme disease in The Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
44.
45.
Metadata
Title
Social-cognitive determinants of the tick check: a cross-sectional study on self-protective behavior in combatting Lyme disease
Authors
Amy van der Heijden
Bob C. Mulder
P. Marijn Poortvliet
Arnold J. H. van Vliet
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4908-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study

Research article

Behavioral antecedents for handwashing in a low-income urban setting in Bangladesh: an exploratory study

Research article

Risk factors of suicide attempt among people with suicidal ideation in South Korea: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Pathways linking car transport for young adults and the public health in Northern Ireland: a qualitative study to inform the evaluation of graduated driver licensing

Research article

Fear of (re)injury and return to work following compensable injury: qualitative insights from key stakeholders in Victoria, Australia

Research article

Exploring ‘generative mechanisms’ of the antiretroviral adherence club intervention using the realist approach: a scoping review of research-based antiretroviral treatment adherence theories