Q fever in the Netherlands: public perceptions and behavioral responses in three different epidemiological regions: a follow-up study

Table 5 Predictors of preventive behavior regarding Q fever

	% of respondents that took one or more preventive measures	Oddsratio (95%-CI)^§
	% of respondents that took one or more preventive measures	Univariate	Multivariate
Sex
Male	26.7	1.0	1.0
Female	32.6	1.3 (1.0-1.7)	1.4 (1.1-1.8)
Age
18-30 yrs	17.9	1.0	1.0
30-50 yrs	27.4	1.7 (1.2-2.6)	1.6 (1.1-2.5)
< 50 yrs	37.0	2.7 (1.8-4.0)	2.0 (1.3-3.1)
Contact with disease
No	29.5	1.0	1.0
Yes^#	75.0	7.2 (1.4-35.7)	5.4 (1.0-28.1)
Level of knowledge
0-3 items corectly answered	25.8	1.0	1.0
4-7 items correctly answered	37.7	1.7 (1.4-2.2)	1.6 (1.2-2.1)
Perceived severity
Low perceived severity	21.4	1.0	1.0
High perceived severity	36.9	2.1 (1.7-2.8)	1.6 (1.2-2.1)
Level of anxiety
Low perceived anxiety	17.1	1.0	1.0
High perceived anxiety	39.1	3.1 (2.4-4.1)	2.3 (1.7-3.1)
Perceived efficacy of measures
Low perceived efficacy	22.2	1.0	1.0
High perceived efficacy	37.3	2.1 (1.6-2.7)	1.7 (1.3-2.2)
Perceived self-efficacy
Low perceived self-efficacy	22.4	1.0	1.0
High perceived self-efficacy	36.2	2.0 (1.5-2.5)	1.4 (1.1-1.9)

^§95%-CI 95% confidence interval; ^#had Q fever themselves or someone in their household.
The following determinant are not included in this table, because they were not significant in the multivariate model (although they were univariate a significant predictor of preventive behaviour); education, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, and intention.
The following determinants were univariate not a significant predictor of taking preventive measures regarding Q fever: having children <18 years in household and perceived vulnerability (2 items).

ISSN: 1471-2458