Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37494089›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Identifying Trusted Sources of Lyme Disease Prevention Information Among Internet Users Connected to Academic Public Health Resources: Internet-Based Survey Study.

Heather L Kopsco, Rayda K Krell, Thomas N Mather, Neeta P Connally

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heather L KopscoDepartment of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2353-6142
Rayda K KrellDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5872-7072
Thomas N MatherDepartment of Plant Sciences and Entomology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0609-8603
Neeta P ConnallyDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7157-7286
Western Connecticut State University · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Rhode Island · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMisinformation about Lyme disease and other tick-transmitted pathogens circulates frequently on the internet and can compete with, or even overshadow, science-based guidance on tick-borne disease (TBD) prevention.

objectiveWe surveyed internet users connected to academic tick-related resources to identify trusted sources of Lyme disease prevention information, explore confidence in tick bite prevention information, and examine associations of these responses with answers to commonly disputed issues.

methodsThe survey was conducted through social media and website pages for Western Connecticut State University Tickborne Disease Prevention Laboratory and the University of Rhode Island TickEncounter Resource Center.

resultsRespondents (N=1190) were predominantly female (903/1190, 76.3%), middle-aged (574/1182, 48.6%), and resided in New England states (663/1190, 55.7%). In total 984 of 1186 (83%) respondents identified conventional experts (eg, the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] or other government health agencies, physicians who follow Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for Lyme disease treatment guidelines, and academics) as trustworthy TBD prevention resources. However, nearly one-fourth of respondents would first consult personal contacts and web-based communities regarding prevention information before consulting conventional expert sources. The opinions of public health experts and physicians were rated among the top motivators underlying personal prevention decisions; yet, more than 50% of participants revealed distrustful attitudes toward, or were uncertain about, CDC-supported statements related to time to transmission of Lyme disease (708/1190, 59.5%), the safety of diethyltoluamide-based repellents for children (604/1183, 51.1%), and recommended use of antibiotic prophylaxis (773/1181, 65.4%). Multimodal regression models revealed that participants from high-Lyme-disease-incidence states were more likely to first seek TBD prevention information from personal networks and nontraditional sources before approaching conventional sources of TBD prevention information. We found that those reporting high rates of social media usage were more than twice as likely to first seek traditional expert sources of prevention information but were overall more likely to reject CDC-promoted Lyme disease information, in particular the established time to transmission of Lyme disease bacteria. Models also predicted that those participants who disagreed with the conventional scientific view on the antibiotic prophylaxis prevention statement were less likely to be confident in their ability to protect themselves from a tick bite. Overall, uncertainty in one's ability to protect oneself against tick bites was strongly associated with uncertainty about beliefs in CDC-promoted TBD prevention information. Self-reported trust in experts and frequency of social media use suggest that these platforms may provide opportunities to engage directly with the public about TBD prevention practices.

conclusionsUsing strategies to improve public trust and provide information where the public engages on social media may improve prevention communication and adoption of best practices.

Indexed as

communicationconsumer health informationdiseaseinternetLyme diseaseonlinepathogenpreventionpublic healthresourcessocial mediasurveytickborne diseaseticks

Identifiers

PMID37494089
PMCPMC10413241
OpenAlexW4385264207

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.