1
|
Madani Hosseini M, Zargoush M, Ghazalbash S. Climate crisis risks to elderly health: strategies for effective promotion and response. Health Promot Int 2024; 39:daae031. [PMID: 38568732 PMCID: PMC10989664 DOI: 10.1093/heapro/daae031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/05/2024] Open
Abstract
The climate crisis significantly impacts the health and well-being of older adults, both directly and indirectly. This issue is of growing concern in Canada due to the country's rapidly accelerating warming trend and expanding elderly population. This article serves a threefold purpose: (i) outlining the impacts of the climate crisis on older adults, (ii) providing a descriptive review of existing policies with a specific focus on the Canadian context, and (iii) promoting actionable recommendations. Our review reveals the application of current strategies, including early warning systems, enhanced infrastructure, sustainable urban planning, healthcare access, social support systems, and community engagement, in enhancing resilience and reducing health consequences among older adults. Within the Canadian context, we then emphasize the importance of establishing robust risk metrics and evaluation methods to prepare for and manage the impacts of the climate crisis efficiently. We underscore the value of vulnerability mapping, utilizing geographic information to identify regions where older adults are most at risk. This allows for targeted interventions and resource allocation. We recommend employing a root cause analysis approach to tailor risk response strategies, along with a focus on promoting awareness, readiness, physician training, and fostering collaboration and benchmarking. These suggestions aim to enhance disaster risk management for the well-being and resilience of older adults in the face of the climate crisis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahsa Madani Hosseini
- Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
| | - Manaf Zargoush
- Health Policy & Management, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M4, Canada
| | - Somayeh Ghazalbash
- Management Analytics, Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Nawrocki CC, Piedmonte N, Niesobecki SA, Rowe A, Hansen AP, Kaufman A, Foster E, Meek JI, Niccolai L, White J, Backenson B, Eisen L, Hook SA, Connally NP, Hornbostel VL, Hinckley AF. Acceptability of 4-poster deer treatment devices for community-wide tick control among residents of high Lyme disease incidence counties in Connecticut and New York, USA. Ticks Tick Borne Dis 2023; 14:102231. [PMID: 37531890 PMCID: PMC10883357 DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2023.102231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 06/12/2023] [Accepted: 07/14/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023]
Abstract
The 4-Poster Tick Control Deer Feeder (4-poster) device applies acaricide to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and can reduce populations of the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), which transmits the agents of Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and Powassan virus disease in the Northeastern United States. While 4-poster devices have the potential to provide community-wide management of blacklegged ticks in Lyme disease endemic areas, no recent study has assessed their acceptability among residents. We conducted a survey of residents from 16 counties with high annual average Lyme disease incidence (≥ 10 cases per 100,000 persons between 2013 and 2017) in Connecticut and New York to understand perceptions and experiences related to tickborne diseases, support or concerns for placement of 4-poster devices in their community, and opinions on which entities should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Overall, 37% of 1652 respondents (5.5% response rate) would support placement of a 4-poster device on their own property, 71% would support placement on other private land in their community, and 90% would support placement on public land. Respondents who were male, rented their property, resided on larger properties, or were very or extremely concerned about encountering ticks on their property were each more likely to support placement of 4-poster devices on their own property. The primary reason for not supporting placement of a 4-poster device on one's own property was the need for weekly service visits from pest control professionals, whereas the top reason for not supporting placement on other land (private or public) was safety concerns. Most respondents (61%) felt property owners should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Communities considering 4-poster devices as part of a tick management strategy should consider targeting owners of larger properties and placing devices on public lands.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney C Nawrocki
- Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
| | - Nicholas Piedmonte
- Bureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Sara A Niesobecki
- Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Adam Rowe
- Bureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA
| | - AmberJean P Hansen
- Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Alison Kaufman
- Bureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Erik Foster
- Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | - James I Meek
- Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Linda Niccolai
- Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Jennifer White
- Bureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Bryon Backenson
- Bureau of Communicable Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA
| | - Lars Eisen
- Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | - Sarah A Hook
- Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | - Neeta P Connally
- Department of Biology, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, USA
| | | | - Alison F Hinckley
- Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Beck A, Bjork J, Biggerstaff BJ, Eisen L, Eisen R, Foster E, Signs K, Tsao JI, Kough E, Peterson M, Schiffman E, Muganda CP, Osborn R, Wozniak R, Bron GM, Phaneuf D, Smith D, Bartholomay L, Paskewitz S, Hinckley AF. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding tick-borne disease prevention in Lyme disease-endemic areas of the Upper Midwest, United States. Ticks Tick Borne Dis 2022; 13:101925. [PMID: 35255349 PMCID: PMC10947721 DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2022.101925] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Revised: 02/04/2022] [Accepted: 02/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases are a major public health threat in the Upper Midwestern United States, including Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. To prevent tick bites and tick-borne diseases, public health officials commonly recommend personal protective measures and property management techniques. Adoption of tick-borne disease prevention behaviors and practices by individuals are, however, highly variable. We aimed to characterize current tick-borne disease knowledge, attitudes, and prevention behaviors (KAB) practiced by the public in these states, as well as their willingness to use specific tick control methods. We conducted a population-based survey in summer 2019 in 48 high-risk counties (those having a five-year average (2013-2017) Lyme disease incidence of ≥ 10 cases per 100,000 persons per year), in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. A total of 2713 surveys were analyzed; survey weights were used to account for household selection probability and post-stratified to match county-level joint age and sex population distributions in population-level inference. An estimated 98% of the population had heard of Lyme disease, with most perceiving it as very or extremely serious (91%); however, only an estimated 25% perceived tick-borne diseases as very or extremely common in their community. Among those who spent time in places with ticks from April through October, an estimated 68% check themselves thoroughly for ticks most of the time or always and 43% use bug repellent on skin or clothing most of the time or always. An estimated 13% of the population had ever treated their property with a pesticide to kill ticks, and 3% had ever used devices that apply pesticide to rodents to kill ticks on their property. Willingness to practice tick bite prevention behaviors, however, was estimated to be much higher; with 82% being willing to perform tick checks at least once a day, and more than 60% willing to use bug repellent, tick control products on pets, or to bathe within two hours of being outdoors. We found that residents would likely be willing to support a county-wide tick control program to reduce the risk of tick-borne disease in their community (81%) or to apply tick control products to their property to reduce the risk of tick-borne disease in their household (79%). Tick checks were more likely to be practiced among participants who perceived tick-borne diseases to be highly prevalent in their community, if they or a household member had been previously diagnosed with a tick-borne disease?, or if they perceived tick exposure to be likely around their home, cabin, or vacation home. In addition, property-based tick control methods were associated with perceived risk of encountering ticks around the home, cabin, or vacation home. Participants who had seen information from state health departments were also more likely to practice preventive measures. The most common reported barriers to using any of these methods were forgetfulness, safety concerns, and lack of awareness. Our survey findings shed light on how residents from these Upper Midwest states may adopt tick control and tick bite prevention measures and how public health outreach may be most effective for this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alyssa Beck
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, United States; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), Oak Ridge, TN, United States
| | - Jenna Bjork
- Minnesota Department of Health, 625 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55155, United States
| | - Brad J Biggerstaff
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, United States
| | - Lars Eisen
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, United States
| | - Rebecca Eisen
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, United States
| | - Erik Foster
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, United States
| | - Kimberly Signs
- Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 333 South Grand Avenue, South Grand Building, Lansing, MI 48933, United States
| | - Jean I Tsao
- Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, 480 Wilson Road, Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States
| | - Erin Kough
- Minnesota Department of Health, 625 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55155, United States
| | - Molly Peterson
- Minnesota Department of Health, 625 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55155, United States
| | - Elizabeth Schiffman
- Minnesota Department of Health, 625 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55155, United States
| | - Christine P Muganda
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 1 West Wilson Street, Madison, WI 53703, United States
| | - Rebecca Osborn
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 1 West Wilson Street, Madison, WI 53703, United States
| | - Ryan Wozniak
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 1 West Wilson Street, Madison, WI 53703, United States
| | - Gebbiena M Bron
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1656 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States
| | - Daniel Phaneuf
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1656 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States
| | - Danielle Smith
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1656 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States
| | - Lyric Bartholomay
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1656 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States
| | - Susan Paskewitz
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1656 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States
| | - Alison F Hinckley
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, 3156 Rampart Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Control of ixodid ticks and prevention of tick-borne diseases in the United States: The prospect of a new Lyme disease vaccine and the continuing problem with tick exposure on residential properties. Ticks Tick Borne Dis 2021; 12:101649. [PMID: 33549976 DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2021.101649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2020] [Revised: 12/13/2020] [Accepted: 12/29/2020] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
In the United States, exposure to human-biting ixodid ticks can occur while spending time on residential properties or in neighborhood green spaces as well as during recreational or occupational activities on public lands. Human-biting tick species collectively transmit >15 species of pathogenic microorganisms and the national burden of tick-borne diseases is increasing. The prospect of a new Lyme disease vaccine for use in humans provides hope for substantial reduction in the >450,000 estimated annual cases of Lyme disease but this breakthrough would not reduce cases of other tick-borne diseases, such as anaplasmosis, babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, spotted fever group rickettsiosis, and Powassan encephalitis. One intriguing question is to what extent a new Lyme disease vaccine would impact the use of personal protection measures acting broadly against tick-bites. The main tick vector for Lyme disease spirochetes in the eastern United States, Ixodes scapularis, also transmits causative agents of anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and Powassan encephalitis; and this tick species co-occurs with other human-biting vectors such as Amblyomma americanum and Dermacentor variabilis. It therefore is important that a new Lyme disease vaccine does not result in reduced use of tick-bite prevention measures, such as tick repellents, permethrin-treated clothing, and frequent tick checks. Another key issue is the continuing problem with tick exposure on residential properties, which represents a heavily used outdoor environment the residents cannot reasonably avoid and where they tend to spend large amounts of time outside. As it may not be realistic to keep up daily vigilance with personal protective measures against tick-bites on residential properties during many months of every year, homeowners may also consider the option to suppress host-seeking ticks by means of deer fencing, landscaping, vegetation management, and use of products to kill host-seeking ticks or ticks infesting rodents. When considering the full range of options for actions that can be taken to suppress host-seeking ticks on residential properties, it is clear that individual homeowners face a difficult and bewildering task in deciding what to do based on very general guidance from public health agencies (developed without the benefit of a strong evidence base) and often without ready access to local public health professionals experienced in tick control. This situation is not satisfactory but cannot be corrected without first addressing knowledge gaps regarding the impact of peridomestic tick control measures on host-seeking ticks, human tick-bites, and tick-borne diseases. In parallel with this effort, there also is a need to increase the local public health workforce with knowledge of and experience with tick control to provide better access for homeowners to sound and objective advice regarding tick control on their properties based on key characteristics of the landscaping, habitat composition, and use patterns by wild animal tick hosts as well as the residents.
Collapse
|