Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33081728›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Tickborne disease awareness and protective practices among U.S. Forest Service employees from the upper Midwest, USA.

Anna Schotthoefer, Kathryn Stinebaugh, Michael Martin, Claudia Munoz-Zanzi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna SchotthoeferMarshfield Clinic Research Institute, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI, 54449, USA. Schotthoefer.Anna@MarshfieldResearch.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-719X
Kathryn StinebaughDivision of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA.
Michael MartinChequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Great Divide Ranger District, P. O. Box 896, Hayward, WI, 54843, USA.
Claudia Munoz-ZanziDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
University of Minnesota · USMarshfield Clinic · USNational Instruments (Ireland) · IE

Funding

Marshfield Clinic Research Institute NAUpper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center 2016 Pilot Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with occupations that require them to spend time working outdoors in suitable tick habitats are predicted to be at an increased risk for tick-borne diseases (TBDs). However, few studies have assessed the risks of outdoor employees in the United States.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey to collect data on exposure to ticks and TBD infections among U.S. Forest Service employees in a high TBD incidence region of northern Wisconsin, and to examine employee knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) regarding TBDs to help guide future education and prevention programs. Chi-square contingency tables, calculations of odds ratios, and logistic regression models were used to identify associations among self-reported employee factors, the proportion of correctly answered knowledge questions, their ranked concern for TBDs, adherence to practicing preventive behaviors, and willingness to pay for protective measures.

resultsNinety-five employees completed the survey. Nearly all respondents (97%) reported recent tick exposure, with 27% reporting encountering 10 or more ticks per week during peak tick season. Employee knowledge of TBD was high (median score: 80% correct). Fifty-nine percent of respondents had high concern for TBDs, and there was high adherence to conducting body checks for ticks (83% reported always doing them), but only moderate use of tick repellents (24% reported always and 60% reported occasionally using). High concern for TBD (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 6.32 [95% confidence intervals, 1.97-20.28]), a history of TBD diagnosis (aOR = 5.88 [1.41-24.55]), and older age (≥ 46 years) (aOR = 3.29 [1.00-10.84]) were positively associated with high practice adherence. Respondents suggested they would be willing to pay for personal protective methods and get a hypothetical vaccine for Lyme disease, but not community-wide efforts to control ticks.

conclusionsOur study provides evidence that U.S. Forest Service employees in Wisconsin represent a high risk group for TBD, and despite relatively high TBD knowledge and engagement in tick protection activities, efforts are needed to reduce their risks for tick bites. More generally, our findings suggest that studies to better understand the factors related to the adoption and effectiveness of public health interventions are needed.

Indexed as

ForestryHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGovernment AgenciesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational ExposureSelf ReportTick-Borne DiseasesUnited StatesKnowledge attitudes practices (KAP) surveyLyme diseaseOccupational riskPersonal protective measuresTick bitesTick-borne disease

Identifiers

PMID33081728
PMCPMC7574197
OpenAlexW3093985272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.