ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and community education.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.