Participant-reported use of human-encountered tick testing results in healthcare settings: A cross-sectional survey

Clicks: 1
ID: 338204
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #318 of 318 articles by views in Open forum infectious diseases

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 318 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract The rising incidence and expanding geographic distribution of tick-borne diseases in the United States have led to innovative approaches to surveillance and risk assessment. Human-encountered tick-testing programs provide submitters with tick identification and pathogen-screening results, although clinical guidelines advise against using tick pathogen results to direct patient management. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 11,936 individuals who submitted ticks to the SUNY Upstate Tick Testing Program during 2019–2021. Of 2,576 respondents (22.6%), 2,560 answered the healthcare-use question; 824 (32.2%) reported using the result when seeking medical help. Among these respondents, 398 reported that a healthcare provider performed diagnostic testing, and 476 perceived that medication was prescribed based on the tick-testing result. Because the survey relied on participant self-report and did not capture symptoms, timing, medication type, clinical indication, or provider rationale, it cannot determine whether tick-testing results caused or improved clinical decisions. The findings nevertheless indicate that respondents bring these results into healthcare interactions. Communication accompanying tick-testing reports should emphasize that detection in a submitted tick does not establish human infection and that such results should not replace established clinical assessment or diagnostic testing.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225087872 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jessica Crooker, Saravanan Thangamani
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Open forum infectious diseases
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ofid/ofag710
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofag710
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.