Risk Factors for Lyme Disease in the General Population—A Survey of Adults and Caregivers in 28 States
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: , typically from outdoor activities in high-incidence areas. The population prevalence of the activities that confer risk is unknown. Methods: We conducted online surveys of adults (ages 18+) and caregivers of children aged 1-17 in jurisdictions with a high incidence of LD, the states neighboring them, and selected counties in California and Oregon (CA/OR). The survey included questions on outdoor activities and occupation in forests, wooded areas, and areas with tall grass, residential characteristics, time spent in a yard, use of personal protection measures, history of LD and tick bites, and LD knowledge and risk perception. Data were weighted separately for each state-level sample and analyzed by region (ie, high incidence, neighboring, and CA/OR) and population (ie, adults and caregivers). Results: A total of 44 330 adults and 28 380 caregivers completed the survey. Most respondents were aware of LD (range, 88-93%), spent time in a yard (adults, 88-92%; children, 96%-98%), or spent recreational time outside (adults, 70-79%; children, 83-84%). Always using prevention measures while doing outdoor recreational activities was reported for 34-40% of adults and 40-42% of children. Conclusions: Despite the high population prevalence of LD awareness and of doing outdoor activities, less than half of surveyed respondents routinely used personal prevention measures to mitigate their risk of tick-borne diseases. More effective strategies and education are needed to prevent LD.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Risk Factors for Lyme Disease in the General Population—A Survey of Adults and Caregivers in 28 States
- Date Crossref
- 21/10/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.