ArticlePloS one2026
It takes a village: Community science informs tick encounter, pathogen, and exposure risk in North Carolina, USA.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As tick-borne disease cases continue to increase over time, there is a growing need to understand the ecological and epidemiological factors that contribute to disease risk. North Carolina is currently experiencing a rise in cases, yet tick-borne research in the state remains limited. In this study, we developed a framework for a community science program in collaboration with 22 county public health agencies to recruit participants to submit incidentally encountered ticks. As part of kit submissions, participants also completed a form describing where and when they encountered the tick, as well as the behaviors that led to the encounters. Submitted ticks were tested for several putative bacterial pathogens, including Borrelia burgdorferi, Ehrlichia spp., and Rickettsia amblyommatis. We additionally assessed how advertising methodology and frequency by county health agencies influenced tick kit submissions and evaluated correlations between agency perceptions of project performance and submission rates. Over two years, we received 444 ticks across 319 unique submissions. While species distributions were largely consistent with prior observations, we report the first published instance of Amblyomma americanum within the mountainous region of NC, indicating a potential range expansion into cooler, higher-altitude areas. Relative risk modeling identified recreational activities as consistently associated with higher likelihood of tick kit submissions. Multiple advertising types appeared to influence the number of kits submitted; however, these results should be interpreted cautiously due to small sample sizes. Overall, our study demonstrates a successful collaboration with state and county health agencies to engage the community in tick-borne disease research. Future studies should build on this framework to further optimize participation.
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.