CONTEXT: Public health programs promote numerous tickborne disease (TBD) prevention measures. However, measures are not frequently or consistently performed. OBJECTIVE: Describe barriers to consistent use of 4 commonly promoted TBD prevention measures. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey (n = 1883) evaluating behaviors regarding TBD prevention measures including conducting tick checks, applying insect repellents, showering/bathing, and applying chemical or natural pesticides to residential yards. Respondents could select reasons for never, rarely, or sometimes performing these measures. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression modeling evaluated associations between the 3 most cited barriers for each measure and select demographic variables. SETTING: The survey was administered to residents in high Lyme disease incidence counties of Connecticut and Maryland, 2016-2017. RESULTS: For tick checks (n = 800), the most cited barriers were forgetting (63%), not spending time in tick habitat (28%), and too much trouble (11%). For applying insect repellents (n = 1303), the most cited barriers were forgetting (38%), personal safety concerns (24%), and too much trouble (19%). For showering/bathing 2 hours after outdoor activity in tick habitat (n = 1080), the most cited barriers were being unaware of the prevention measure (51%), too much trouble (18%), and forgetting (18%). For applying chemical pesticides to yards (n = 1320), the most cited barriers were having environmental (45%), pet safety (31%), and personal safety concerns (28%). Lastly, for applying natural pesticides to yards (n = 1357), the most cited barriers were being unaware of natural pesticides (31%), having cost concerns (23%), and not being concerned about ticks on property (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Forgetting, too much trouble, unawareness, and safety concerns were primary barriers to using several TBD prevention measures. Education regarding effectiveness, safety, and timing may increase uptake of certain measures. These challenges can be difficult to address, highlighting the need for passive TBD prevention measures, such as a Lyme disease vaccine.

CONTEXT: In the northeastern United States, recommendations to prevent diseases spread by black-legged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) and lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum) often rely on individuals to use personal protection or yard-based strategies. The 4-Poster deer treatment stations (4-Posters) suppress tick populations by treating deer hosts with acaricide, potentially offering a community-wide approach for reducing tick-borne diseases in endemic areas. The 4-Poster deployment logistics in mainland community settings are not well documented but are needed for future public health tick control efforts. PROGRAM: As part of a public health research effort to design a population-based 4-Poster effectiveness study aimed at reducing tick-borne disease incidence, TickNET researchers partnered with the Town of Ridgefield (Connecticut) to understand the feasibility and operational logistics of deploying 4-Posters on public land within a residential community to inform future public health interventions by municipalities or vector control agencies. IMPLEMENTATION: We deployed three 4-Posters on a municipal property from July to December 2020 and used motion-activated cameras to record wildlife activity nearby. We documented per-device operational details, costs, materials consumed, and animal activity. EVALUATION: Operation of 4-Posters was feasible, and device challenges were easily remedied. Deer visitation and heavy nontarget animal use were documented at all devices. Unexpectedly, monthly corn consumption was not correlated with monthly deer-view days. The monthly cost per device was US $1279 or US $305 per hectare with an average 21 minutes of weekly service time. DISCUSSION: Use of 4-Posters by communities, public health agencies, or vector control programs may be a practicable addition to tick management programs in tick-borne disease endemic areas in the Northeast. Such programs should carefully consider local and state regulations, follow manufacturer and pesticide label guidelines, and include wildlife monitoring. High labor costs incurred in this project could be mitigated by training vector control agency or municipality staff to service 4-Posters.

The 4-Poster Tick Control Deer Feeder (4-poster) device applies acaricide to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and can reduce populations of the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), which transmits the agents of Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and Powassan virus disease in the Northeastern United States. While 4-poster devices have the potential to provide community-wide management of blacklegged ticks in Lyme disease endemic areas, no recent study has assessed their acceptability among residents. We conducted a survey of residents from 16 counties with high annual average Lyme disease incidence (≥ 10 cases per 100,000 persons between 2013 and 2017) in Connecticut and New York to understand perceptions and experiences related to tickborne diseases, support or concerns for placement of 4-poster devices in their community, and opinions on which entities should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Overall, 37% of 1652 respondents (5.5% response rate) would support placement of a 4-poster device on their own property, 71% would support placement on other private land in their community, and 90% would support placement on public land. Respondents who were male, rented their property, resided on larger properties, or were very or extremely concerned about encountering ticks on their property were each more likely to support placement of 4-poster devices on their own property. The primary reason for not supporting placement of a 4-poster device on one's own property was the need for weekly service visits from pest control professionals, whereas the top reason for not supporting placement on other land (private or public) was safety concerns. Most respondents (61%) felt property owners should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Communities considering 4-poster devices as part of a tick management strategy should consider targeting owners of larger properties and placing devices on public lands.

Blacklegged ticks, Ixodes scapularis Say, transmit Lyme disease spirochetes and other human pathogens in the eastern United States. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are key reproductive hosts for I. scapularis adults, and therefore control methods targeting deer have the potential for landscape-wide tick suppression. A topical acaricide product, containing 10% permethrin, is self-applied by deer to kill parasitizing ticks when they visit 4-Poster Tick Control Deer Feeders (hereafter, 4-Posters) Previous 4-Poster intervention studies, including in residential settings, demonstrated suppression of I. scapularis populations but did not include human-based outcomes. To prepare for a proposed 4-Poster intervention trial in residential areas of Connecticut and New York that would include human-tick encounters and tick-borne diseases as outcomes, we sought to identify areas (study clusters) in the 80-100 ha size range and specific locations within these areas where 4-Poster devices could be deployed at adequate density (1 device per 20-25 ha) and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Geographic Information System-based data were used to identify prospective study clusters, based on minimum thresholds for Lyme disease incidence, population density, and forest cover. Ground truthing of potential 4-Poster placement locations was done to confirm the suitability of selected clusters. Based on these efforts, we failed to identify more than a few residential areas fulfilling all criteria for a treatment cluster. We, therefore, reconsidered pursuing the intervention trial, which required inclusion of >30 treatment clusters to achieve adequate statistical power. The 4-Poster methodology may be more readily evaluated in natural or public areas than in residential settings in NY or CT.

BACKGROUND: Lyme disease incidence is increasing, despite current prevention options. New Lyme disease vaccine candidates are in development, however, investigation of the acceptability of a Lyme disease vaccine among potential consumers is needed prior to any vaccine coming to market. We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study to estimate willingness to receive a potential Lyme disease vaccine and factors associated with willingness. METHODS: The web-based survey was administered to a random sample of Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York residents June-July 2018. Survey-weighted descriptive statistics were conducted to estimate the proportion willing to receive a potential Lyme disease vaccine. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression models were used to quantify the association of sociodemographic characteristics and Lyme disease vaccine attitudes with willingness to be vaccinated. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 3313 respondents (6% response rate). We estimated that 64% of residents were willing to receive a Lyme disease vaccine, while 30% were uncertain and 7% were unwilling. Compared to those who were willing, those who were uncertain were more likely to be parents, adults 45-65 years old, non-White, have less than a bachelor's degree, or have safety concerns about a potential Lyme disease vaccine. Those who were unwilling were also more likely to be non-White, have less than a bachelor's degree, or have safety concerns about a potential Lyme disease vaccine. In addition, the unwilling had low confidence in vaccines in general, had low perceived risk of contracting Lyme disease, and said they would not be influenced by a positive recommendation from a healthcare provider. DISCUSSION: Overall, willingness to receive a Lyme disease vaccine was high. Effective communication by clinicians regarding safety and other vaccine parameters to those groups who are uncertain will be critical for increasing vaccine uptake and reducing Lyme disease incidence.

Tickborne diseases are an increasing public health problem in the northeastern USA. Bait boxes that apply acaricide to rodents have been shown in small field studies to significantly reduce abundance of Ixodes scapularis ticks as well as their pathogen infection rates in treated areas. The effectiveness of this intervention for preventing human tickborne diseases (TBDs) has not been demonstrated. During 2012-2016, TickNET collaborators conducted a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial among 622 Connecticut households. Each household received active (containing fipronil wick) or placebo (empty) bait boxes in their yards over two consecutive years. Information on tick encounters and TBDs among household members was collected through biannual surveys. Nymphal ticks were collected from a subset of 100 properties during spring at baseline, during treatment, and in the year post-intervention. Demographic and property characteristics did not differ between treatment groups. There were no significant differences post-intervention between treatment groups with respect to tick density or pathogen infection rates, nor for tick encounters or TBDs among household members. We found no evidence that rodent-targeted bait boxes disrupt pathogen transmission cycles or significantly reduce household risk of tick exposure or TBDs. The effectiveness of this intervention may depend on scale of use or local enzootic cycles.

Tick-borne diseases (TBDs) are increasing despite prevention recommendations. We explored whether cost is a barrier to prevention use in Connecticut and Maryland, using a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were queried regarding their willingness to pay for chemical, natural, and rodent-targeted yard pesticide treatments and permethrin-treated clothing. We evaluated associations between demographics, TBD knowledge and attitudes, and willingness to pay for prevention methods. Most respondents would pay for yard treatments (85%); 95% preferring natural pesticide, and 82% would pay for permethrin-treated clothing. Most did not want to pay more than $99 for any of the yard treatments. Having a household income of $100 000 was associated with willingness to pay $100 or more for chemical, natural, or rodent-targeted treatments and $25 or more for permethrin self-treated and pretreated clothing. Yard treatments, especially natural pesticides, were acceptable for TBD prevention; however, current pricing may be cost-prohibitive. Permethrin-treated clothing may be an affordable and acceptable prevention method.

As part of a TickNET collaboration we evaluated the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to tick-borne disease (TBD) prevention among persons living in endemic areas of Connecticut (CT) and Maryland (MD). Up-to-date information on the use of various prevention methods, as well as attitudes toward available and potential prevention options, is critical for effective promotion of recommended behaviors. During 2016-2017, printed invitations were mailed via the post office to 27,029 households requesting participation in an online survey regarding knowledge of TBD, risk perceptions, and prevention behaviors. Prevention behaviors included tick checks, showering/bathing, insect repellents, pet tick control, and chemical or natural pesticide use on residential properties. Associations of sociodemographic characteristics and knowledge and attitude variables with prevention behaviors were assessed in unadjusted analyses and multivariable models to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Participants were also asked if they would be willing to get a Lyme disease (LD) vaccine, if one becomes available. Overall, 1883 (7%) persons completed the survey. Participants reported using preventive behaviors most of the time or always as follows: pet tick control (83%), tick checks (58%), showering/bathing (42%), insect repellent (31%), and chemical (23%) or natural (15%) pesticides on property. Self-rated knowledge of LD, perceived prevalence of LD, perceived severity of LD, and perceived likelihood of contracting LD or another TBD were significantly (p < 0.05) associated with performing a tick check [aOR 2.5, aOR 1.71, aOR 1.36, aOR 1.83, respectively]. Female gender and perceived prevalence of LD were significantly associated with applying insect repellent [aOR 1.56, aOR 1.64, respectively]. Perceived prevalence of LD was significantly associated with showering or bathing, insect repellents, and pet tick control [aOR 1.42, aOR 1.64, aOR 1.92, respectively]. Income > $100,000 was significantly associated with applying a chemical or natural pesticide to one's property [aOR 1.29, aOR 1.40, respectively]. A majority of respondents (84%) reported that they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a LD vaccine if one were available. Few behaviors (tick checks and pet tick control) were reported to be practiced by more than half of the respondents living in LD endemic areas. Perceived prevalence of LD was the only factor associated with performing most of the prevention behaviors (tick checks, showering/bathing, use of insect repellents, and pet tick control). Use of chemical or natural pesticides appears to be driven by income. Greater efforts are needed to encourage use of prevention behaviors in endemic areas, and this may be facilitated by increasing awareness of local prevalence.

Prevention of tick-borne diseases requires an understanding of when and where exposure to ticks is most likely. We used an epidemiologic approach to define these parameters for residents of a Lyme-endemic region. Two persons in each of 500 Connecticut households were asked to complete a log each night for one week during June, 2013. Participants recorded their whereabouts in 15min increments (indoors, outdoors in their yard, outdoors on others' private property, or outdoors in public spaces) and noted each day whether they found a tick on themselves. Demographic and household information was also collected. Logs were completed for 934 participants in 471 households yielding 51,895 time-place observations. Median participant age was 49 years (range 2-91 years); 52% were female. Ninety-one participants (9.8%) reported finding a tick during the week, with slightly higher rates among females and minors. Household factors positively associated with finding a tick included having indoor/outdoor pets (odds ratio (OR)=1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-2.9), the presence of a bird feeder in the yard (OR=1.9; CI:1.2-3.2), and presence of an outdoor dining area (OR=2.2; CI:1.1-4.3). Individual factors associated with finding a tick on a given day were bathing or showering (OR=3.7; CI:1.3-10.3) and hours spent in one's own yard (OR=1.2, CI:1.1-1.3). Nineteen participants found ticks on multiple days, more than expected assuming independence (p<0.001). Participants who found ticks on multiple days did not spend more time outdoors but were significantly more likely to be male than those finding ticks on a single day (p<0.03). Our findings suggest that most tick exposures in the study area occurred on private property controlled by the respective homeowner. Interventions that target private yards are a logical focus for prevention efforts.

BACKGROUND: In the northeastern United States, tickborne diseases are a major public health concern. In controlled studies, a single springtime application of acaricide has been shown to kill between 68 and 100% of ticks. Although public health authorities recommend use of acaricides to control tick populations in yards, the effectiveness of these pesticides to prevent tick bites or human tickborne diseases is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial among 2,727 households in three Northeastern states. Households received a single springtime barrier application of bifenthrin or water according to recommended practices. Tick drags were conducted 3-4 weeks post-treatment on 10% of properties. Information on human-tick encounters and tickborne diseases was collected through monthly surveys; reports of illness were validated by medical record review. RESULTS: Although abundance of questing ticks was significantly lower (63%) on acaricide-treated properties, there was no difference between treatment groups in human-tick encounters, self-reported or medical record-validated tickborne diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Used as recommended, acaricide barrier sprays do not significantly reduce household risk of tick exposure or tickborne disease. Measures for preventing tickborne diseases should be evaluated against human outcomes to confirm effectiveness.