Spatial Clusters and Non-spatial Predictors of Tick-Borne Disease Diagnosis in Indiana
- 52 Downloads
The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, we sought to identify spatial clusters of self-reported tick-borne disease (TBD) diagnosis in Indiana. Secondly, we determined the significant predictors of self-reported TBD diagnosis in a sample of Indiana residents. Study participants were selected from existing online panels maintained by Qualtrics and completed a cross-sectional survey (n = 3003). Our primary outcome of interest was self-reported TBD diagnosis (Yes/No). Cases and background population were aggregated to the county level. We used a purely spatial discrete Poisson model in SatScan® to determine significant clusters of high-risk TBD diagnosis counties. We also used X2 tests in bivariate analyses, to identify potential predictor variables for inclusion in an initial model, and backward elimination selection method to identify the final model. Two clusters of counties with significant high relative risk of self-reported TBD diagnosis in the southeast and southwest of Indiana were detected. Males in Indiana were more likely to self-report TBD diagnosis compared to females. Study participants who conducted a thorough tick check after being outdoors were significantly less likely to report TBD diagnosis compared to those who did not. Increased positive perceptions of TBD personal protective measures were associated with reduced self-reported TBD diagnosis. Older study participants were less likely to self-report TBD diagnosis compared to younger participants. The identification of two clusters of TBD diagnosis in southern Indiana is consistent with a northern spread of TBDs and suggests a need for continued surveillance of the counties in the vicinity of the observed clusters. Future studies should be designed to identify risk factors for TBD diagnosis in the affected counties of Indiana.
KeywordsSelf-report Tick-borne disease diagnosis Spatial clusters Indiana Personal protective measures
This project was supported by the Environmental Resilience Institute (ERI), funded by Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change (PfEC) Grand Challenge initiative.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
- 1.U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/about/index.htm.
- 2.Social Research Center. New South Wales Population health survey 2019. Retrieved May 25, 2019, from https://www.srcentre.com.au/our-research/new-south-wales-population-health-survey.
- 3.Department of Health and Human Services. Tick-Borne Disease Working Group-2018 report to Congress 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/tbdwg-report-to-congress-2018.pdf.
- 11.Omodior, O., Pennington-Gray, L., & Donohoe, H. (2015). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior in predicting the intention to engage in tick-borne disease personal protective behavior amongst visitors to an outdoor recreation center. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration., 33(2), 37–53.Google Scholar
- 20.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lyme Disease Charts and Figures: Most Recent Year 2018. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/datasurveillance/charts-figures-recent.html.
- 23.Qualtrics. Qualtrics 2018. Retrieved December 21, 2018, from https://uits.iu.edu/qualtrics.
- 25.Kulldorff, M. (2017). SaTScan user guide for version 9.4. 2015.Google Scholar
- 27.U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. Indiana: Three rural classifications based on Census places n.d. Retrieved April 22, 2019, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/53180/25569_IN.pdf?v=0.
- 33.U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. Anaplasmosis-epidemiology and statistics 2019. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/anaplasmosis/stats/index.html.