Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31431351›Full record

ArticleTicks and tick-borne diseases2019

Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding tick-borne disease prevention in endemic areas.

Sara Niesobecki, AmberJean Hansen, Heather Rutz, Shaylee Mehta, Katherine Feldman, James Meek, Linda Niccolai, Sarah Hook, Alison Hinckley

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ticks and tick-borne diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sara NiesobeckiConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, One Church St, 7th floor, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. Electronic address: sara.niesobecki@yale.edu.
AmberJean HansenConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, One Church St, 7th floor, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. Electronic address: amberjean.hansen@yale.edu.
Heather RutzMaryland Department of Health, 201W. Preston St, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Electronic address: heather.rutz@maryland.gov.
Shaylee MehtaMaryland Department of Health, 201W. Preston St, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Electronic address: shayleem87@gmail.com.
Katherine FeldmanMaryland Department of Health, 201W. Preston St, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Electronic address: KFeldmandvm@gmail.com.
James MeekConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, One Church St, 7th floor, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. Electronic address: james.meek@yale.edu.
Linda NiccolaiConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, One Church St, 7th floor, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. Electronic address: linda.niccolai@yale.edu.
Sarah HookCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Rd, Fort Collins, CO, 80521, USA. Electronic address: vhx8@cdc.gov.
Alison HinckleyCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Rd, Fort Collins, CO, 80521, USA. Electronic address: cue0@cdc.gov.
Yale University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USUniversity of Mary · USMaryland Department of Health · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of a TickNET collaboration we evaluated the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to tick-borne disease (TBD) prevention among persons living in endemic areas of Connecticut (CT) and Maryland (MD). Up-to-date information on the use of various prevention methods, as well as attitudes toward available and potential prevention options, is critical for effective promotion of recommended behaviors. During 2016-2017, printed invitations were mailed via the post office to 27,029 households requesting participation in an online survey regarding knowledge of TBD, risk perceptions, and prevention behaviors. Prevention behaviors included tick checks, showering/bathing, insect repellents, pet tick control, and chemical or natural pesticide use on residential properties. Associations of sociodemographic characteristics and knowledge and attitude variables with prevention behaviors were assessed in unadjusted analyses and multivariable models to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Participants were also asked if they would be willing to get a Lyme disease (LD) vaccine, if one becomes available. Overall, 1883 (7%) persons completed the survey. Participants reported using preventive behaviors most of the time or always as follows: pet tick control (83%), tick checks (58%), showering/bathing (42%), insect repellent (31%), and chemical (23%) or natural (15%) pesticides on property. Self-rated knowledge of LD, perceived prevalence of LD, perceived severity of LD, and perceived likelihood of contracting LD or another TBD were significantly (p < 0.05) associated with performing a tick check [aOR 2.5, aOR 1.71, aOR 1.36, aOR 1.83, respectively]. Female gender and perceived prevalence of LD were significantly associated with applying insect repellent [aOR 1.56, aOR 1.64, respectively]. Perceived prevalence of LD was significantly associated with showering or bathing, insect repellents, and pet tick control [aOR 1.42, aOR 1.64, aOR 1.92, respectively]. Income > $100,000 was significantly associated with applying a chemical or natural pesticide to one's property [aOR 1.29, aOR 1.40, respectively]. A majority of respondents (84%) reported that they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a LD vaccine if one were available. Few behaviors (tick checks and pet tick control) were reported to be practiced by more than half of the respondents living in LD endemic areas. Perceived prevalence of LD was the only factor associated with performing most of the prevention behaviors (tick checks, showering/bathing, use of insect repellents, and pet tick control). Use of chemical or natural pesticides appears to be driven by income. Greater efforts are needed to encourage use of prevention behaviors in endemic areas, and this may be facilitated by increasing awareness of local prevalence.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overConnecticutEndemic DiseasesFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMarylandMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSelf ReportSex FactorsTick-Borne DiseasesTick-borne disease attitudesTick-borne disease behaviorTick-borne disease knowledgeTick-borne disease preventionTick-borne diseasesTicks

Identifiers

PMID31431351
PMCPMC10948045
OpenAlexW2966318333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.