ArticleBMJ public health2026
Project ITCH: cross-sectional surveys to understand residential vector control attitudes and practices across New England.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To understand the attitudes and prevalence of peridomestic vector control across New England, and to identify factors associated with self-reported residential vector control uptake. Methods: An online-based survey captured 4855 responses from households across New England in 2023 and 2024. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to quantify factors, including attitudes towards ticks and mosquitoes, motivations for vector control and property characteristics, that are associated with total household residential vector control practices. Results: The majority of respondents reported using at least one household-level vector control intervention in 2023 (88%) and 2024 (93%). Overall, higher levels of concern for ticks, mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease showed a gradient response and were associated with statistically significant increasing rates of peridomestic vector control; however, concern for tick-borne disease was not associated with vector control usage (p values >0.05). After adjustment for socio-economics, yard size, property type and levels of concern, Maine and Vermont both had lower incidence rates of total vector control interventions compared with the rest of New England ((adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR)=0.89; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.93; p value=<0.001), (aIRR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; p value=0.002), respectively). Finally, protecting the health of family members had a strong association with peridomestic vector control uptake. Conclusions: This study reveals factors associated with increased uptake of peridomestic vector control, including levels of concern, state of residence and primary motivation for vector control use. Results support previous evidence and fill in gaps in geographical spread and the vector control interventions assessed. Future theory-based programming can help close gaps and increase uptake of peridomestic vector control.
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.