Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = professionally tick-exposed persons

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
11 pages, 1004 KiB  
Article
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices on Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus and Tick-Borne Diseases within Professionally Tick-Exposed Persons, Health Care Workers, and General Population in Serbia: A Questionnaire-Based Study
by Ana Vasić, Jovana Bjekić, Gorana Veinović, Darko Mihaljica, Ratko Sukara, Jasmina Poluga, Saša R. Filipović and Snežana Tomanović
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(2), 867; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020867 - 13 Jan 2022
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3094
Abstract
This study assessed the level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) and tick-borne diseases (TBDs) among different groups of people in Serbia. Professionally tick-exposed persons (PTEPs), health care workers (HCWs), and the general population (GP) were subjected to [...] Read more.
This study assessed the level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) and tick-borne diseases (TBDs) among different groups of people in Serbia. Professionally tick-exposed persons (PTEPs), health care workers (HCWs), and the general population (GP) were subjected to an anonymous, voluntary, online questionnaire using Microsoft Forms. A total of 663 questionnaire responses were collected (February–March 2021), while 642 were included in the analysis. The significant difference in knowledge in TBDs existed between GP and PTEPs, and HCWs (p < 0.001). The perception of risk-to-tick exposure and TBDs was generally high (42.4 (95% CI: 33.6–51.2) within GP, 44.9 (95% CI: 35.8–53.9) within PTEPs and 46.2 (95% CI: 38.0–54.5) within HCWs), while fear was low (13.7 (95% CI: 7.9–19.5) within GP, 12.6 (95% CI: 7.3–19.9) within PTEPs, and 13.5 (95% CI: 7.4–19.5) within HCWs). Protective practices differed across groups (F (2639) = 12.920, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.039), with both PTEPs (t = 3.621, Cohen d = 0.332, p < 0.001) and HCWs (t = 4.644, Cohen d = 0.468, p < 0.001) adhering to more protective practices than the GP, without differences between PTEPs and HCWs (t = 1.256, Cohen d = 0.137, p = 0.421). Further education about TBDs in Serbia is required and critical points were identified in this study. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop