ArticleScience in One Health2026
Assessing risk perception and knowledge gaps of tick-borne diseases in Nei Mongol Zizhiqu and Northeast China.
Article in Science in One Health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ticks are key vectors of zoonotic diseases in the Northern Hemisphere, including China, yet surveillance and public awareness remain limited. While global studies address risk perception, similar research in China, especially with spatial or longitudinal detail, is scarce. This study assesses tick-borne disease risk perception, influencing factors, and spatial variation in Northeast China and Nei Mongol Zizhiqu (also known as Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region) to inform targeted interventions. Methods: In 2019, a cross-sectional questionnaire surveyed 4000 adults in Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, and Nei Mongol Zizhiqu using multi-stage sampling. Knowledge was assessed in four domains: tick biology/ecology, bite treatment, tick-borne diseases, and bite prevention, alongside socio-demographic and behavioral data. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression identified knowledge levels and associated factors. Results: Knowledge of tick biology was relatively high (1830/4000, 45.8% with high knowledge), but awareness of bite treatment, diseases, and especially prevention was low (31.5% with high tick-borne disease knowledge; 21.6% with high prevention knowledge), even among high-risk groups. Urban residents had higher knowledge than those in rural or remote areas. Frequent woodland visits and prior tick bites increased knowledge of tick biology (regression coefficients: 0.311 and 0.387, both Conclusion: Major gaps exist in public knowledge of tick-borne diseases, particularly regarding prevention, with notable disparities across regions and risk groups. Targeted, region-specific interventions are urgently needed to improve awareness and protection, especially in high-risk and low-awareness areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.