Frontiers in public health · 2026
Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and community education.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gobran Sabrina, Fagan Caroline, Dawe Lawson, Harris Emma K, Roundy Christopher M, Cagle Shelby, Kelp Nicole, Saavedra-Rodriguez Karla, Hemming-Schroeder Elizabeth
Аннотация
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 (β = 0.378; 95% CI: 0.128-0.628; p = 0.003), while species composition, sex, and life-stage distributions were similar between the two methods. Tick-check stations and hybrid surveillance required less effort per tick than active surveillance when tick densities were low across all commute-time scenarios, with the greatest efficiency observed under high tick-station engagement. Participants who had read the tick-check station signage scored significantly higher in TBD knowledge than participants who had not (p = 0.006).
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.
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 (β = 0.378; 95% CI: 0.128-0.628; p = 0.003), while species composition, sex, and life-stage distributions were similar between the two methods. Tick-check stations and hybrid surveillance required less effort per tick than active surveillance when tick densities were low across all commute-time scenarios, with the greatest efficiency observed under high tick-station engagement. Participants who had read the tick-check station signage scored significantly higher in TBD knowledge than participants who had not (p = 0.006).
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.