Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research

Date Submitted: Oct 14, 2022
Date Accepted: Mar 30, 2023

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Identifying Trusted Sources of Lyme Disease Prevention Information Among Internet Users Connected to Academic Public Health Resources: Internet-Based Survey Study

Kopsco HL, Krell RK, Mather TN, Connally NP

Identifying Trusted Sources of Lyme Disease Prevention Information Among Internet Users Connected to Academic Public Health Resources: Internet-Based Survey Study

JMIR Form Res 2023;7:e43516

DOI: 10.2196/43516

PMID: 37494089

PMCID: 10413241

Identifying trusted sources of Lyme disease prevention information among internet users connected to academic public health resources: a survey

  • Heather L. Kopsco; 
  • Rayda K. Krell; 
  • Thomas N. Mather; 
  • Neeta P. Connally

ABSTRACT

Background:

Misinformation about Lyme disease and other tick-transmitted pathogens circulates frequently online and can compete with, or even overshadow, science-based guidance on tickborne disease prevention.

Objective:

We surveyed internet users who are connected to academic tick resources to identify trusted sources of Lyme disease prevention information, explore tick bite prevention confidence, and examine associations of these responses with answers to common disputed issues.

Methods:

The survey was administered via social media and website pages for Western Connecticut State University Tickborne Disease Prevention Laboratory and the University of Rhode Island TickEncounter Resource Center.

Results:

Respondents (n=1190) were predominantly female (75%), middle-aged (48.6%), and resided in New England (55.7%). Eighty-three percent of respondents identified conventional experts (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or other government health agency, physicians who follow Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for Lyme disease treatment, academics) as trustworthy tickborne disease prevention resources, but nearly one quarter of subjects would first consult personal contacts and online communities regarding prevention information. The opinions of public health experts and physicians were rated among the top motivators behind personal prevention decisions, yet more than 50% of subjects revealed distrustful attitudes toward, or were uncertain about, CDC-supported statements related to time-to-transmission of Lyme disease, the safety of DEET-based repellents for children, and recommended use of antibiotic prophylaxis. We found that self-reported social media usage in this group was positively correlated with first seeking traditional expert sources, but also increased rejection of CDC-promoted Lyme disease information, in particular time-to-transmission of Lyme disease. Self-reported trust in experts and frequency of social media use suggest that these platforms may provide opportunities to engage directly with the public about tickborne disease prevention practices.

Conclusions:

Employing strategies to improve public trust and provide information where the public engages on social media may improve prevention communication and adoption of best practices. Clinical Trial: Ticks, Tickborne Disease, Public Health, Social Media, Consumer Health Information


 Citation

Please cite as:

Kopsco HL, Krell RK, Mather TN, Connally NP

Identifying Trusted Sources of Lyme Disease Prevention Information Among Internet Users Connected to Academic Public Health Resources: Internet-Based Survey Study

JMIR Form Res 2023;7:e43516

DOI: 10.2196/43516

PMID: 37494089

PMCID: 10413241

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.