4.4 Article

US public's experience with ticks and tick-borne diseases: Results from national HealthStyles surveys

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 483-488

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.03.017

关键词

Tick-borne disease; Lyme disease; Prevention; Tick exposure

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surveillance data indicate that tick-borne diseases (TBDs) are a substantial public health problem in the United States, yet information on the frequency of tick exposure and TBD awareness and prevention practices among the general population is limited. The objective of this study was to gain a more complete understanding of the U.S. public's experience with TBDs using data from annual, nationally representative HealthStyles surveys. There were 4728 respondents in 2009, 4050 in 2011, and 3503 in 2012. Twenty-one percent of respondents reported that a household member found a tick on his or her body during the previous year; of these, 10.1% reported consultation with a health care provider as a result. Overall, 63.7% of respondents reported that Lyme disease (LD) occurs in the area where they live, including 49.4% of respondents from the West South Central and 51.1% from the Mountain regions where LD does not occur. Conversely, in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions where LD, anaplasmosis, and babesiosis are common, 13.9% and 20.8% of respondents, respectively, reported either that no TBDs occur in their area or that they had not heard of any of these diseases. The majority of respondents (51.2%) reported that they did not routinely take any personal prevention steps against tick bites during warm weather. Results from these surveys indicate that exposure to ticks is common and awareness of LD is widespread. Nevertheless, use of TBD prevention measures is relatively infrequent among the U.S. public, highlighting the need to better understand barriers to use of prevention measures. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据