Knowledge, protective behaviours, and perception of Lyme disease in an area of emerging risk: results from a cross-sectional survey of adults in Ottawa, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The number of Lyme disease risk areas in Canada is growing. In regions with emerging tick populations, it is important to emphasize peridomestic risk and the importance of protective behaviours in local public health communication. This study aims to identify characteristics associated with high levels of Lyme disease knowledge and adoption of protective behaviours among residents in the Ottawa, Ontario region. Methods A geographically stratified web survey was conducted in November 2020 (n = 2018) to determine knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding Lyme disease among adult residents. Responses were used to calculate: (i) composite scores for knowledge and adoption of protective practices; and (ii) an exposure risk index based on reported activity in woodlands during the spring-to-fall tick exposure risk period. Results 60% of respondents had a high knowledge of Lyme disease, yet only 14% indicated they often use five or more measures to protect themselves. Factors strongly associated with a high level of Lyme disease knowledge included being 55 or older (Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.04), living on a property with a yard (OR = 3.22), having a high exposure index (OR = 1.59), and knowing someone previously infected with Lyme disease (OR = 2.05). Strong associations with the adoption of a high number of protective behaviours were observed with membership in a non-Indigenous racialized group (OR = 1.70), living on a property with a yard (OR = 2.37), previous infection with Lyme disease (OR = 2.13), prior tick bite exposure (OR = 1.62), and primarily occupational activity in wooded areas (OR = 2.31). Conclusions This study highlights the dynamics between Lyme disease knowledge, patterns of exposure risk awareness, and vigilance of personal protection in a Canadian region with emerging Lyme disease risk. Notably, this study identified gaps between perceived local risk and protective behaviours, presenting opportunities for targeted enhanced communication efforts in areas of Lyme disease emergence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".