Making sense of unfamiliar risks in the countryside: The case of Lyme disease

Marcu, Afrodita; Uzzell, David; Barnett, Julie

doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.03.010

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results were consistent with those reported by Gould et al [29], Marcu et al [7], and Beaujean et al [8], in that we found that checking for tick bites is a measure that is more easily adopted than preventing tick bites. Therefore, for all groups, the advice should primarily stress the importance of checking for tick bites.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Although preventing tick bites (eg, by wearing protective clothing or using repellants) and checking for tick bites after visiting a risk area are effective and cost-efficient methods to prevent an individual from contracting a tick-borne disease [7], public compliance to these methods is low. According to Marcu et al [8] and Beaujean et al [9], people do not comply with precautions because of the following reasons: people believe that these precautions interfere with how they want to enjoy nature (eg, they refuse to wear long clothes on a hot day), people assume that the risk of tick bites is low, people do not believe that the precautions are effective (eg, they refuse to apply insect repellent products), and people do not know how to identify a tick bite (eg, recognizing and removing a tick). Although it is not impossible to change the knowledge and perceptions of the people about precautions, Mowbray et al [10] recently reported a finding for segmenting the general audience in relation to tick bites and LD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Risk Group Profiles as a Lightweight Qualitative Approach for Intervention Development: An Example of Prevention of Tick Bites and Lyme Disease

Beaujean¹,

Velsen²,

Gemert-Pijnen³

et al. 2013

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany public health campaigns use a one-size-fits-all strategy to achieve their desired effect. Public health campaigns for tick bites and Lyme disease (LD) in many countries convey all relevant preventive measures to all members of the public. Although preventing tick bites (eg, by wearing protective clothing or using repellants) and checking for tick bites after visiting a risk area are effective and cost-efficient methods to prevent an individual from contracting a tick-borne disease, public compliance to these methods is low.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify the group of individuals within the general Dutch population that are at high risk of being bitten by a tick or developing LD and to describe their characteristics, knowledge, and perceptions. The incidence of patients visiting their general practitioner for tick bites and erythema migrans (the first sign of LD) has increased tremendously in the last decades in the Netherlands and other European countries; therefore, our efforts can be used to counter this troubling trend.MethodsWe conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews to identify individuals belonging to the average risk group. Participants were recruited in two ways. Patients who visited two municipal health services travel health clinics (one in a high-endemic area and one in a low-endemic area) were asked to participate. This resulted in 18 interviews. Further, parents were recruited using the convenience sampling method, which resulted in 7 interviews. We discontinued interviewing when the point of data saturation was reached. We analyzed the results immediately after each interview to identify the point of data saturation. Data saturation is when the new interviews provided no new information compared to the previous interviews. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four groups at risk of being bitten by ticks and developing LD among the general Dutch population. The groups were as follows: (1) outdoor people that check for tick bites, (2) outdoor people that do not check for tick bites, (3) parents that check their children for tick bites, and (4) parents that do not check their children for tick bites. Previous experience with ticks or LD was the main denominator between the groups. Checking for tick bites is a more easily adopted measure than preventing tick bites. Therefore, for all groups, public health efforts in the future should primarily emphasize on the importance of checking for tick bites.ConclusionsThe lightweight qualitative approach presented in this paper is highly relevant in tailoring public health efforts toward specific groups. The profiles of members in each risk group and the motivations underlying the behaviors of the members in each risk group can be used to determine the features and content of a targeted communication strategy about ticks and LD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Risk Group Profiles as a Lightweight Qualitative Approach for Intervention Development: An Example of Prevention of Tick Bites and Lyme Disease

Beaujean¹,

Velsen²,

Gemert-Pijnen³

et al. 2013

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is now widely acknowledged that lay thinking about risk is deeply embedded in social, cultural, and political values and underpinned by issues of trust , equity and economics (Sturgis and Allum 2004;Knight and Barnett 2010). Compared Strategies for dismissing dietary risks 4 to technical experts, the public typically will include a wider range of considerations and local resources when reasoning about a risk, framing it in a way that makes it relevant to everyday beliefs and practices (Horlick-Jones and Prades 2009;Horlick-Jones, Walls, and Kitzinger 2007;Marcu, Uzzell, and Barnett 2011).…”

Section: Lay Reasoning Around Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for dismissing dietary risks: insights from user-generated comments online

Regan

Shan

McConnon

et al. 2014

Health, Risk & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communication around chronic dietary risks has proved challenging as dietary health risks are ostensibly met with attenuated perceptions of their likelihood and consequences. In this article we examine the strategies that an online public use to negotiate risk messages from expert stakeholders that may be incongruent with their own position on a risk. Progressing from conceptualisations of amplification as laid out in the social amplification of risk framework, we are particularly interested in understanding whether and how amplifications of risk may be attributed toward other stakeholders. The article presents an analysis of comments posted on a website oriented to a British audience. These comments were left by members of the public in reply to two online media articles published in 2012 reporting on an Strategies for dismissing dietary risks 2 epidemiological study carried out in the United States on the risks of red meat consumption.We found that the comments generally expressed resistance to the risk message, embodied in two main strategies. The first strategy was to discount the message itself by deploying rules of thumb that undermined the applicability of the general risk message to the particularities of the individual. The second strategy was to undermine the risks by casting doubt on the credibility of the message source. Together, these strategies allowed the commenters to argue that the risks and the process of communicating them resulted in an exaggerated picture.These findings highlight that by attributing amplification to others, further polarisation of risk views between stakeholders may occur. Thinking about amplification as an attribution provides a distinct and significant conceptual contribution to the study of incongruent risk responses.

show abstract

“…One recurring theme in interviews with UK park visitors was resistance to viewing the countryside as a place that included risk, in part because it clashed with framing of visits to such places as restorative. This led some interviewees to oppose on-site signage and leaflets, whilst the common advice to wear long sleeves and trousers was rejected as it would reduce their enjoyment of summer [25]. Even amongst those who had previously suffered LD, during-visit precautionary measures remained unpopular [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can interventions that aim to decrease Lyme disease hazard at non-domestic sites be effective without negatively affecting ecosystem health? A systematic review protocol

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Lyme disease (LD) is the most commonly reported, broadly distributed vector-borne disease of the northern temperate zone. It is transmitted by ticks and, if untreated, can cause skin, cardiac, nervous system and musculoskeletal disease. The distribution and incidence of LD is increasing across much of North America and Western Europe. Interventions to decrease exposure to LD hazard by encouraging behavioural change have low acceptance in high risk groups, and a safe, effective human LD vaccine is not presently available. As a result, habitat level interventions to decrease LD hazard itself (i.e. levels of infected ticks) have been proposed. However, some interventions may potentially negatively affect ecosystem health, and consequentially be neither desirable, nor politically feasible. This systematic review will catalogue interventions that aim to reduce LD hazard at non-domestic sites, and examine the evidence supporting those which are unlikely to negatively affect ecosystem health. Methods:The review will be carried out in two steps. First, a screening and cataloguing stage will be conducted to identify and characterise interventions to decrease LD hazard at non-domestic sites. Secondly, the subset of interventions identified during cataloguing as unlikely to negatively affect ecosystem health will be investigated. In the screening and cataloguing step literature will be collected through database searching using pre-chosen search strings, hand-searching key journals and reviewing the websites of public health bodies. Further references will be identified by contacting stakeholders and researchers. Article screening and assessment of the likely effects of interventions on ecosystem health will be carried out independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer will be consulted if disagreements arise. The cataloguing step results will be presented in tables. Study quality will then be assessed independently by two reviewers, using adapted versions of established tools developed in healthcare research. These results will be presented in a narrative synthesis alongside tables. Though a full meta-analysis is not expected to be possible, if sub-groups of studies are sufficiently similar to compare, a partial meta-analysis will be carried out.

show abstract

Making sense of unfamiliar risks in the countryside: The case of Lyme disease

Cited by 28 publications

References 34 publications

Using Risk Group Profiles as a Lightweight Qualitative Approach for Intervention Development: An Example of Prevention of Tick Bites and Lyme Disease

Using Risk Group Profiles as a Lightweight Qualitative Approach for Intervention Development: An Example of Prevention of Tick Bites and Lyme Disease

Strategies for dismissing dietary risks: insights from user-generated comments online

Can interventions that aim to decrease Lyme disease hazard at non-domestic sites be effective without negatively affecting ecosystem health? A systematic review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About