From: Prevention of tick bites: an evaluation of a smartphone app
Questionnaire 2 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Univariate analysis | ||||||
Variables | Total (N = 238) | Non-app user group (N = 130) | App user group (N = 108) | Odds ratio | 95% CI | P value |
% (n/N) | % (n/N) | % (n/N) | ||||
Knowledge (scale range 1–8)a | ||||||
Low | 22.7 (54/238) | 26.9 (35/130) | 17.6 (19/108) | Ref. | – | – |
High | 77.3 (184/238) | 73.1 (95/130) | 82.4 (89/108) | 1.73 | 0.92–3.24 | .09 |
Perceived severity (scale range 1–7)b | ||||||
Negative | 51.4 (119/226) | 53.7 (65/121) | 51.4 (54/105) | Ref. | – | – |
Positive | 47.3 (107/226) | 46.3 (56/121) | 48.6 (51/105) | 1.10 | 0.65–1.85 | .731 |
Perceived susceptibility 1 (scale range 1–7)b | ||||||
Negative | 44.5 (106/238) | 45.4 (59/130) | 43.5 (47/108) | Ref. | – | – |
Positive | 55.5 (132/238) | 54.6 (70/130) | 56.5 (61/108) | 1.08 | 0.65–1.80 | .77 |
Perceived susceptibility 2 (scale range 1–7)b | ||||||
Negative | 87.3 (145/166) | 87.4 (76/87) | 87.3 (69/79) | Ref. | – | – |
Positive | 12.7 (21/166) | 12.6 (11/87) | 12.7 (10/79) | 1.00 | 0.40–2.50 | .998 |
Self-efficacy (scale range 1–7)b | ||||||
Negative | 4.2 (10/238) | 5.4 (7/130) | 2.8 (3/108) | Ref. | – | – |
Positive | 95.8 (228/238) | 94.6 (123/130) | 97.2 (105/108) | 1.99 | 0.50–7.90 | .32 |
Response efficacy (scale range 1–7)b | ||||||
Negative | 8.8 (21/238) | 9.2 (12/130) | 8.3 (9/108) | Ref. | – | – |
Positive | 91.2 (217/238) | 90.8 (118/130) | 91.7 (99/108) | 1.12 | 0.45–2.76 | .81 |
Intention (scale range 1–7)b | ||||||
Negative | 5.5 (13/238) | 6.9 (9/130) | 3.7 (4/108) | Ref. | – | – |
Positive | 94.5 (225/238) | 93.1 (121/130) | 96.3 (104/108) | 1.93 | 0.60–6.46 | .28 |