ArticleHealth science reports2022
Tick magnets: The occupational risk of tick-borne disease exposure in forestry workers in New York.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Seroprevalence of spotted fever rickettsiosis and ehrlichiosis among food processing workers and their families in Latino communities in North Carolina.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Piroplasm infestations in cattle: exploring tick control usingFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Spatiotemporal trends and covariates of Lyme borreliosis incidence in Poland, 2010-2019.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Targeted Tick-Borne Disease Recognition: Assessing Risk for Improved Public Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Rural health and rural industries: Opportunities for partnership and action.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024Article
- Tick magnets: The occupational risk of tick-borne disease exposure in forestry workers in New York.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutdoor workers, such as forestry workers, are at an increased risk for contracting tick-borne diseases due to their prolonged time spent in tick habitats. Although well studied in Europe, no studies have been conducted with forestry workers in the Northeastern United States since 1990s.
methodsFull-time forestry workers and two comparison groups (volunteer firefighter/first responders and indoor/healthcare workers) within New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were recruited for this cross-sectional seroprevalence study. Blood draws were conducted to test for antibodies to Lyme, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis. Surveys were administered to determine personal risk factors and protective behaviors.
resultsBetween November 2020 and May 2021, 256 (105 forestry, 101 firefighter/first responder, and 50 indoor/healthcare) workers participated in this study. Forestry workers had a probability of testing positive nearly twice as high for any tick-borne disease (14%) compared to firefighter/first responders (8%) and to indoor workers (6%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (
conclusionsThis pilot study suggests a higher proportion of tick-borne disease risk among forestry workers compared to firefighters/first responders and indoor/healthcare workers with lesser exposure. A larger study to confirm or refute this pilot data could help optimize mitigation/prevention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.