Willingness and capacity of publicly-funded vector control programs in the USA to engage in tick management

Abstract

Abstract Background The vast majority of vector-borne diseases in the USA are associated with mosquitoes or ticks. Mosquito control is often conducted as part of community programs run by publicly-funded entities. By contrast, tick control focuses primarily on individual residential properties and is implemented predominantly by homeowners and the private pest control firms they contract. We surveyed publicly-funded vector control programs (VCPs), presumed to focus mainly on mosquitoes, to determine what tick-related services they currently offer, and their interest in and capacity to expand existing services or provide new ones. Methods We distributed a survey to VCPs in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and Pacific Coast states of the USA, where humans are at risk for bites by tick vectors (Ixodes scapularis or Ixodes pacificus) of agents causing Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases. The data we report are based on responses from 118 VCPs engaged in vector control and with at least some activities focused on ticks. Results Despite our survey targeting geographic regions where ticks and tick-borne diseases are persistent and increasing public health concerns, only 11% (12/114) of VCPs reported they took direct action to suppress ticks questing in the environment. The most common tick-related activities conducted by the VCPs were tick bite prevention education for the public (70%; 75/107 VCPs) and tick surveillance (48%; 56/116). When asked which services they would most likely include as part of a comprehensive tick management program, tick bite prevention education (90%; 96/107), tick surveillance (89%; 95/107) and tick suppression guidance for the public (74%; 79/107) were the most common services selected. Most VCPs were also willing to consider engaging in activities to suppress ticks on public lands (68%; 73/107), but few were willing to consider suppressing ticks on privately owned land such as residential properties (15%; 16/107). Across all potential tick-related services, funding was reported as the biggest obstacle to program expansion or development, followed by personnel. Conclusions Considering the hesitancy of VCPs to provide tick suppression services on private properties and the high risk for tick bites in peridomestic settings, suppression of ticks on residential properties by private pest control operators will likely play an important role in the tick suppression landscape in the USA for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, VCPs can assist in this effort by providing locally relevant guidelines to homeowners and private pest control firms regarding best practices for residential tick suppression efforts and associated efficacy evaluations. Publicly-funded VCPs are also well positioned to educate the public on personal tick bite prevention measures and to collect tick surveillance data that provide information on the risk of human encounters with ticks within their jurisdictions. Graphical Abstract