Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37531890›Full record

ArticleTicks and tick-borne diseases2023

Acceptability of 4-poster deer treatment devices for community-wide tick control among residents of high Lyme disease incidence counties in Connecticut and New York, USA.

Courtney C Nawrocki, Nicholas Piedmonte, Sara A Niesobecki, Adam Rowe, AmberJean P Hansen, Alison Kaufman, Erik Foster, James I Meek, Linda Niccolai, Jennifer White and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ticks and tick-borne diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Perception of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases Worldwide.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Courtney C NawrockiDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Electronic address: osm9@cdc.gov.
Nicholas PiedmonteBureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Sara A NiesobeckiConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Adam RoweBureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
AmberJean P HansenConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Alison KaufmanBureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Erik FosterDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
James I MeekConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Linda NiccolaiConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Jennifer WhiteBureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Bryon BackensonBureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Lars EisenDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Sarah A HookDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Neeta P ConnallyDepartment of Biology, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, USA.
Victoria L HornbostelDepartment of Biology, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, USA.
Alison F HinckleyDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USNew York State Department of Health · USWestern Connecticut State University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Emerging Infections Program-HAIU01CI000311 · CI · NYSDOH/HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI BIRKHEAD, GUTHRIE S · 2005 to 2011
$25.8M
DVD&DBD Rotavirus/PCV (ACA) EIPU01CI000307 · CI · CONNECTICUT STATE DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI CARTTER, MATTHEW LEWIS · 2005 to 2011
$19.3M
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCEZID CDC HHS U50 CK000195NCEZID CDC HHS U50 CK000199NCPDCID CDC HHS U01 CI000307NCPDCID CDC HHS U01 CI000311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 4-Poster Tick Control Deer Feeder (4-poster) device applies acaricide to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and can reduce populations of the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), which transmits the agents of Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and Powassan virus disease in the Northeastern United States. While 4-poster devices have the potential to provide community-wide management of blacklegged ticks in Lyme disease endemic areas, no recent study has assessed their acceptability among residents. We conducted a survey of residents from 16 counties with high annual average Lyme disease incidence (≥ 10 cases per 100,000 persons between 2013 and 2017) in Connecticut and New York to understand perceptions and experiences related to tickborne diseases, support or concerns for placement of 4-poster devices in their community, and opinions on which entities should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Overall, 37% of 1652 respondents (5.5% response rate) would support placement of a 4-poster device on their own property, 71% would support placement on other private land in their community, and 90% would support placement on public land. Respondents who were male, rented their property, resided on larger properties, or were very or extremely concerned about encountering ticks on their property were each more likely to support placement of 4-poster devices on their own property. The primary reason for not supporting placement of a 4-poster device on one's own property was the need for weekly service visits from pest control professionals, whereas the top reason for not supporting placement on other land (private or public) was safety concerns. Most respondents (61%) felt property owners should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Communities considering 4-poster devices as part of a tick management strategy should consider targeting owners of larger properties and placing devices on public lands.

Indexed as

DeerIxodesLyme DiseaseTick InfestationsAnimalsConnecticutFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleNew YorkTick ControlHumansLyme diseasePreventionTick-borne diseaseTicks

Identifiers

PMID37531890
PMCPMC10883357
OpenAlexW4385437696

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.