From Lyme disease emergence to endemicity: a cross sectional comparative study of risk perceptions in different populations

BMC Public Health

Denise Bélanger⁵  Jean-Philippe Waaub¹  François Milord⁴  Lise Gern²  Pascal Michel³  André Ravel⁵  Cécile Aenishaenslin⁵ 

[1] Groupe d’étude et de recherche en analyse de la décision (GERAD), 3000 Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal H3T 2A7, Québec, Canada;Laboratoire d’Eco-Epidémiologie, Institut de Biologie, Université de Neuchâtel, 11 Emile-Argand, CP 158, 2009 Neuchâtel, Suisse;Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada, CP 5000, Saint-Hyacinthe H2S 7C6, Québec, Canada;Institut national de santé publique du Québec, 1255 Beauregard, Longueuil J4K 2M3, Québec, Canada;Groupe de Recherche en Épidémiologie des Zoonoses et Santé Publique (GREZOSP), Pavillon de la santé publique, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, CP 5000, Saint-Hyacinthe J2S 7C6, Québec, Canada

关键词: Experts;    General public;    Endemicity;    Emergence;    Knowledge;    Preventive behaviors;    Prevention;    Risk perception;    Lyme borreliosis;    Lyme disease;   

Others  :  1091854
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1298

 received in 2014-09-29, accepted in 2014-12-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Lyme disease (LD) is a tick-borne emerging disease in Canada that has been endemic in many temperate countries for decades. Currently, one of the main approaches for LD prevention is the promotion of individual-level preventive behaviors against ticks. Health behaviors are influenced by individual and social factors, one important of which is risk perception. This study aims to describe and compare risk perception of LD, within and between general populations and experts living in two different regions: the Neuchâtel canton in Switzerland, where LD is endemic, and the Montérégie region in Québec (Canada), where LD is emerging.

Method

A web-based survey was conducted in both study regions (814 respondents) in 2012, and a questionnaire was administered to 16 experts. Comparative analyses of knowledge, risk exposure and different components of LD risk perception were performed. Multivariate analyses were used to calculate a global risk perception score and to identify determinants of risk perception in both regions.

Results

In Montérégie, only 15% of the survey respondents had a good level of knowledge of LD compared to Neuchâtel where 51% of survey respondents had good levels of knowledge. In Montérégie, 24% of respondents perceived themselves as being at high or very high risk of contracting LD vs 54% in Neuchâtel; however, a higher percentage of respondents from this region believed that personal protection was simple to carry out (73% vs 58% in Montérégie). Based on the population surveys, almost all of the identified determinants of risk perception were different between both populations except for gender. A good level of knowledge, living in the risk zone and knowing someone who has had LD increased risk perception, while a high level of education and being 18–34 years of age decreased this perception. The majority of the studied components of risk perception were different between populations and their regional experts.

Conclusion

This study suggests that risk perception of LD differs between populations and regional experts living in different epidemiological situations. Monitoring of knowledge and risk perception in local populations may help to better target LD communication efforts in accordance with population specific attributes thereby enhancing prevention efficacy.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Aenishaenslin et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]WHO: Lyme borrelioses in Europe: Influences of Climate and Climate Change, Epidemiology, Ecology and Adaptation Measures. Denmark: World Health Organisation; 2006:35.
• [2]Nadelman RB, Wormser GP: Lyme borreliosis. Lancet 1998, 352(9127):557-565.
• [3]Centers for disease control and prevention [http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0819-lyme-disease.html webcite]
• [4]Bourre-Tessier J, Milord F, Pineau C, Vinet E: Indigenous Lyme disease in Quebec. J Rheumatol 2011, 38(1):183.
• [5]Ogden NH, Bouchard C, Kurtenbach K, Margos G, Lindsay LR, Trudel L, Nguon S, Milord F: Active and passive surveillance and phylogenetic analysis of Borrelia burgdorferi elucidate the process of Lyme disease risk emergence in Canada. Environ Health Perspect 2010, 118(7):909-914.
• [6]Gerster JC, Guggi S, Perroud H, Bovet R: Lyme arthritis appearing outside the United States: a case report from Switzerland. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981, 283(6297):951-952.
• [7]Swiss Federal Public Health Office: La borréliose de Lyme: Enquête Sentinella 2008 à 2010. Bulletin de l'Office fédéral de la santé publique 2011, 17 octobre 2011(42):895-898.
• [8]Jouda F, Perret JL, Gern L: Density of questing Ixodes ricinus nymphs and adults infected by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Switzerland: spatio-temporal pattern at a regional scale. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2004, 4(1):23-32.
• [9]Schuler M, Zimmermann H, Altpeter E, Heininger U: Epidemiology of tick-borne encephalitis in Switzerland, 2005 to 2011. Euro Surveill 2014, 19(13):1-7.
• [10]Piesman J, Gern L: Lyme borreliosis in Europe and North America. Parasitology 2004, 129(Suppl):S191-S220.
• [11]Piesman J, Eisen L: Prevention of tick-borne diseases. Annu Rev Entomol 2008, 53:323-343.
• [12]Finch C, Al-Damluji MS, Krause PJ, Niccolai L, Steeves T, O'Keefe CF, Diuk-Wasser MA: Integrated assessment of behavioral and environmental risk factors for Lyme disease infection on Block Island, Rhode Island. PLoS One 2014, 9(1):e84758.
• [13]Lane RS, Manweiler SA, Stubbs HA, Lennette ET, Madigan JE, Lavoie PE: Risk factors for Lyme disease in a small rural community in northern California. Am J Epidemiol 1992, 136(11):1358-1368.
• [14]Smith G, Wileyto EP, Hopkins RB, Cherry BR, Maher JP: Risk factors for lyme disease in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Public Health Rep 2001, 116(Suppl 1):146-156.
• [15]Malouin R, Winch P, Leontsini E, Glass G, Simon D, Hayes EB, Schwartz BS: Longitudinal evaluation of an educational intervention for preventing tick bites in an area with endemic lyme disease in Baltimore County, Maryland. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 157(11):1039-1051.
• [16]Vazquez M, Muehlenbein C, Cartter M, Hayes EB, Ertel S, Shapiro ED: Effectiveness of personal protective measures to prevent Lyme disease. Emerg Infect Dis 2008, 14(2):210-216.
• [17]Mowbray F, Amlot 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(9):817-825.
• [18]Gray JS, Granstrom M, Cimmino M, Daniel M, Gettinby G, Kahl O, Jaenson TG, Jongejan F, Korenberg E, O'Connell S: Lyme borreliosis awareness. Zentralbl Bakteriol 1998, 287(3):253-265.
• [19]Cartter ML, Farley TA, Ardito HA, Hadler JL: Lyme disease prevention–knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors among high school students in an endemic area. Conn Med 1989, 53(6):354-356.
• [20]Valente SL, Wemple D, Ramos S, Cashman SB, Savageau JA: Preventive behaviors and knowledge of tick-borne illnesses: results of a survey from an endemic area. J Public Health Manag Pract 2014, 00(00):1-8.
• [21]Heller JE, Benito-Garcia E, Maher NE, Chibnik LB, Maher CP, Shadick NA: Behavioral and attitudes survey about Lyme disease among a Brazilian population in the endemic area of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. J Immigr Minor Health 2010, 12(3):377-383.
• [22]Mowbray F, Amlot R, Rubin GJ: Predictors of protective behaviour against ticks in the UK: a mixed methods study. Ticks Tick Borne Dis 2014, 5(4):392-400.
• [23]McKenna D, Faustini Y, Nowakowski J, Wormser GP: Factors influencing the utilization of Lyme disease-prevention behaviors in a high-risk population. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2004, 16(1):24-30.
• [24]Beaujean DJ, Gassner F, Wong A, van Steenbergen JE, Crutzen R, Ruwaard D: Determinants and protective behaviours regarding tick bites among school children in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1148. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Beaujean DJ, Bults M, van Steenbergen JE, Voeten HA: 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. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Phillips CB, Liang MH, Sangha O, Wright EA, Fossel AH, Lew RA, Fossel KK, Shadick NA: Lyme disease and preventive behaviors in residents of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. Am J Prev Med 2001, 20(3):219-224.
• [27]Gould LH, Nelson RS, Griffith KS, Hayes EB, Piesman J, Mead PS, Cartter ML: Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Lyme disease prevention among Connecticut residents, 1999–2004. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2008, 8(6):769-776.
• [28]Herrington JE Jr, Campbell GL, Bailey RE, Cartter ML, Adams M, Frazier EL, Damrow TA, Gensheimer KF: Predisposing factors for individuals’ Lyme disease prevention practices: Connecticut, Maine, and Montana. Am J Public Health 1997, 87(12):2035-2038.
• [29]Herrington JE: Risk perceptions regarding ticks and Lyme disease: a national survey. Am J Prev Med 2004, 26(2):135-140.
• [30]Sjöberg LMB, Rundmo T: Explaining Risk Perception. An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception Research. Trondheim: Rotunde; 2004.
• [31]Conner M, Norman P: Predicting Health Behaviour. Open University Press; 2005.
• [32]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 1997, 13(4):265-270.
• [33]Brewer NT, Weinstein ND, Cuite CL, Herrington JE: Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Ann Behav Med 2004, 27(2):125-130.
• [34]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(2):136-145.
• [35]Slovic P: Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236(4799):280-285.
• [36]Slovic P: Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Social Theories of Risk. Edited by Krimsky S, Golding D. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 1992:117-152.
• [37]Slovic P: The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan; 2000.
• [38]Sjoberg L: Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol 1998, 3(1):1-12.
• [39]Sjoberg L: Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 2000, 20(1):1-11.
• [40]Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX: The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann Am Acad Polit Ss 1996, 545:95-105.
• [41]Chauvin B, Hermand D, Mullet E: Risk perception and personality facets. Risk Anal 2007, 27(1):171-185.
• [42]Nahimana I, Gern L, Péter O, Praz G, Moosmann Y, Francioli P: [Epidemiology of Lyme borreliosis in French-speaking Switzerland]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 2000, 130(41):1456-1461.
• [43]Moosmann Y, Brossard M, Raeber P, Gern L: Estimated Lyme borreliosis incidence in the canton of Neuchâtel (Switzerland). Bulletin de la Société neuchâteloise des Sci Naturelles 2012, 132:47-56.
• [44]Ferrouillet C, Lambert L, Milord F: Consultation sur l'état actuel de la surveillance des zoonoses au Québec et son adéquation avec les changements climatiques et écologique. Québec: Institut national de santé publique du Québec; 2012:147.
• [45]Garvin JH, Gordon TF, Haignere C, Ducette JP: Development of a public health assessment tool to prevent Lyme disease: tool construction and validation. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2005, 2:11.
• [46]Serafin D: Lyme disease risk reduction: perceptions and behaviors in a Connecticut community. Master ThesisSouthern Connecticut State University, Department of Public Health; 2004
• [47]Jouda F, Perret JL, Gern L: Ixodes ricinus density, and distribution and prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection along an altitudinal gradient. J Med Entomol 2004, 41(2):162-169.
• [48]Léger Marketing [http://leger360.com/en-CA/home.asp webcite]
• [49]Swiss Statistics [http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/01/02/blank/key/raeumliche_verteilung/kantone__gemeinden.html webcite]
• [50]Institut de la statistique du Québec [http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/structure/ra_total.htm webcite]
• [51]Aenishaenslin C, Hongoh V, Cisse HD, Hoen AG, Samoura K, Michel P, Waaub JP, Belanger D: Multi-criteria decision analysis as an innovative approach to managing zoonoses: results from a study on Lyme disease in Canada. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:897. BioMed Central Full Text
• [52]Centre national de référence pour les maladies transmises par les tiques [http://www2.unine.ch/cnrt/page-11421.html webcite]
• [53]Clopper C, Pearson E: The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26(4):404-413.
• [54]Fabrigar L, Wegener D: Exploratory Factor Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
• [55]Fabrigar L, Wegener D, MacCallum R, Strahan E: Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 1999, 4(3):272-299.
• [56]Tabachnick B, Fidell L: Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.; 2007.
• [57]Kaiser HF, Rice J: Little jiffy, mark 4. Educ Psychol Meas 1974, 34(1):111-117.
• [58]Tavakol M, Dennick R: Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011, 2:53-55.
• [59]Armstrong PM, Brunet LR, Spielman A, Telford SR 3rd: Risk of Lyme disease: perceptions of residents of a Lone Star tick-infested community. Bull World Health Organ 2001, 79(10):916-925.
• [60]Shepperd JA, Carroll P, Grace J, Terry M: Exploring the causes of comparative optimism. Psychol Belg 2002, 42(1–2):65-98.
• [61]Weinstein ND: Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: conclusions from a community-wide sample. J Behav Med 1987, 10(5):481-500.
• [62]Decker DJ, Evensen DT, Siemer WF, Leong KM, Riley SJ, Wild MA, Castle KT, Higgins CL: Understanding risk perceptions to enhance communication about human-wildlife interactions and the impacts of zoonotic disease. ILAR J 2010, 51(3):255-261.
• [63]Marsden PV, Wright JD: The Handbook of Survey Research. 2nd edition. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; 2010.
• [64]Henson RK, Roberts JK: Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research - Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ Psychol Meas 2006, 66(3):393-416.
• [65]Gustafson PE: Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 1998, 18(6):805-811.
• [66]Deery HA: Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. J Safety Res 1999, 30(4):225-236.
• [67]Fan W, Yan Z: Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 2010, 26(2):132-139.