Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42908985›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and community education.

Sabrina Gobran, Caroline Fagan, Lawson Dawe, Emma K Harris, Christopher M Roundy, Shelby Cagle, Nicole Kelp, Karla Saavedra-Rodriguez, Elizabeth Hemming-Schroeder

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Sabrina GobranDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Caroline FaganDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Lawson DaweDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Emma K HarrisDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Christopher M RoundyColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, United States.
Shelby CagleDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Nicole KelpDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Karla Saavedra-RodriguezDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Elizabeth Hemming-SchroederDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Rising tick-borne disease (TBD) cases and the geographical expansion of tick populations underscore the need for effective surveillance and public education regarding local risk. This study assessed the effectiveness of tick-check stations-self-service trailhead stations that provide tick and TBD information while allowing visitors to report trail use, tick encounters, and submit collected ticks-as a tool for tick surveillance and public education. Methods: To assess the effectiveness of tick-check stations for surveillance, we evaluated station engagement and compared tick density estimates, species composition, and sex- and life-stage distributions with those obtained through concurrent active surveillance. In addition, we compared submission numbers, and tick species, sex, and life stages to those collected through a mail-in submission system conducted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). To quantify feasibility, we estimated effort per tick and compared effort across simulated sampling scenarios. Finally, in-person knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) interviews were conducted at trailheads to assess baseline tick KAP and to evaluate differences between sites with and without tick-check stations. Results: Engagement with tick-check stations was sustained throughout the study. Tick-check stations yielded 80 ticks, compared with 28 ticks collected through active surveillance and 28 ticks submitted through the CDPHE mail-in program. Tick-check station yield increased with underlying active-surveillance density ( Conclusion: Tick-check stations can provide tick density estimates comparable to active surveillance while requiring less effort in many scenarios, particularly in low-density settings. Our findings also highlight opportunities for targeted outreach to address gaps in TBD knowledge. As both a surveillance and educational tool, tick-check stations offer a sustainable approach for expanding tick monitoring in resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

Health EducationPopulation SurveillanceTick-Borne DiseasesTick InfestationsTicksAnimalsColoradoFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleactive tick surveillanceDermacentorKAPOne Healthpassive tick surveillancetick-borne diseasetickstrail behavior

Identifiers

PMID42908985
PMCPMC13683670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.