Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2026
Cities As Interfaces of Zoonotic Hazard Emergence: Development of the New York City Tick and Wildlife Urban Surveillance System
Published on: March 10, 2026
Comparison of tick surveillance approaches: utilizing trailhead tick-check stations to support tick surveillance and
Sabrina Gobran1, Caroline Fagan1, Lawson Dawe1
1Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Introduction:
Rising tick-borne disease (TBD) cases and the geographical expansion of tick populations underscore the need for effective surveillance and public education regarding local risk. This study assessed the effectiveness of tick-check stations-self-service trailhead stations that provide tick and TBD information while allowing visitors to report trail use, tick encounters, and submit collected ticks-as a tool for tick surveillance and public education.
Methods:
To assess the effectiveness of tick-check stations for surveillance, we evaluated station engagement and compared tick density estimates, species composition, and sex- and life-stage distributions with those obtained through concurrent active surveillance. In addition, we compared submission numbers, and tick species, sex, and life stages to those collected through a mail-in submission system conducted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). To quantify feasibility, we estimated effort per tick and compared effort across simulated sampling scenarios. Finally, in-person knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) interviews were conducted at trailheads to assess baseline tick KAP and to evaluate differences between sites with and without tick-check stations.
Results:
Engagement with tick-check stations was sustained throughout the study. Tick-check stations yielded 80 ticks, compared with 28 ticks collected through active surveillance and 28 ticks submitted through the CDPHE mail-in program. Tick-check station yield increased with underlying active-surveillance density (β = 0.378; 95% CI: 0.128-0.628; p = 0.003), while species composition, sex, and life-stage distributions were similar between the two methods. Tick-check stations and hybrid surveillance required less effort per tick than active surveillance when tick densities were low across all commute-time scenarios, with the greatest efficiency observed under high tick-station engagement. Participants who had read the tick-check station signage scored significantly higher in TBD knowledge than participants who had not (p = 0.006).
Conclusion:
Tick-check stations can provide tick density estimates comparable to active surveillance while requiring less effort in many scenarios, particularly in low-density settings. Our findings also highlight opportunities for targeted outreach to address gaps in TBD knowledge. As both a surveillance and educational tool, tick-check stations offer a sustainable approach for expanding tick monitoring in resource-limited settings.
