Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and community education.
- 1Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
- 2Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, United States.
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 (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.
Related
- Multimodal genomic surveillance for respiratory pathogens at four U.S. international airports: A comparison of air, wastewater, clinical, and national surveillance data
- One Health genomic surveillance of ticks found on community-dwelling non-human ‘farm’ animals to identify microbes associated with tick borne illnesses in Eastern Ontario
- Immunologic comparison of alpha-gal sensitized and non-sensitized groups from a community based sample
- Dissection of neuropsychiatric-relevant behavioral and structural phenotypes utilizing neuron type-specific ablation of the Bassoon gene in mice
- Comparisons of nematode assay efficiencies and recommendations across 10 state nematode assay labs utilizing turfgrass
BibTeX
@article{gobran2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and community education.}},
author = {Sabrina Gobran and Caroline Fagan and Lawson Dawe and Emma K Harris and Christopher M Roundy and Shelby Cagle and Nicole Kelp and Karla Saavedra-Rodriguez and Elizabeth Hemming-Schroeder},
journal = {Frontiers in public health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2026.1919913},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42908985},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and community education.
AU - Sabrina Gobran
AU - Caroline Fagan
AU - Lawson Dawe
AU - Emma K Harris
AU - Christopher M Roundy
AU - Shelby Cagle
AU - Nicole Kelp
AU - Karla Saavedra-Rodriguez
AU - Elizabeth Hemming-Schroeder
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
JO - Frontiers in public health
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1919913
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42908985
AB - 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.
SN - 2296-2565
ER -