1242 Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Public Health Rep. 2021 Sep-Oct;136(5):609-617. doi: 10.1177/0033354920973235. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
Although tick-borne diseases account for a large number of health care visits in the United States, clinical practices for tick bite and Lyme disease treatment and prevention are not well understood. The objective of this study was to better understand factors associated with clinical practices related to tick bites and Lyme disease.
In 2013-2015, questions about tick-bite evaluation, Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment, appropriate use of Lyme disease testing, and tick-bite prevention were included in Porter Novelli's DocStyles survey, a nationally representative annual web-based survey of health care providers. We performed analyses of responses by provider license type and state-level incidence (high or low) of Lyme disease in 2019.
A total of 4517 providers were surveyed across the 3 study years. Overall, 80.9% of providers reported that they had evaluated at least 1 patient for a tick bite, 47.6% had diagnosed at least 1 patient with Lyme disease, and 61.9% had treated at least 1 patient for Lyme disease in the previous year. Providers from states with a high incidence of Lyme disease saw more patients for tick bites and Lyme disease than providers from states with a low incidence of Lyme disease. Few providers correctly chose Lyme disease testing as clinically useful in the hypothetical case of a patient from a state with a high incidence of Lyme disease with an arthritic knee (36.0%) or with new-onset atrioventricular block (39.5%), and respondents across all provider types incorrectly chose testing when not clinically indicated. Most providers (69.7%) reported routinely recommending tick-bite prevention methods to patients.
Many providers evaluate patients for tick bites and treat patients for Lyme disease, but knowledge about appropriate testing is low. Providers may benefit from tailored education about appropriate Lyme disease diagnosis, testing, and effective tick-bite prevention.
尽管蜱传疾病在美国导致大量的医疗保健就诊,但对蜱虫叮咬和莱姆病的治疗和预防的临床实践并不清楚。本研究的目的是更好地了解与蜱虫叮咬和莱姆病相关的临床实践相关的因素。
在 2013-2015 年,Porter Novelli 的 DocStyles 调查包括了有关蜱虫叮咬评估、莱姆病诊断和治疗、适当使用莱姆病检测以及蜱虫叮咬预防的问题,这是一项针对医疗保健提供者的全国性年度网络调查。我们根据提供者许可证类型和 2019 年莱姆病发病率(高或低)对调查结果进行了分析。
在 3 年的研究中,共对 4517 名提供者进行了调查。总体而言,80.9%的提供者报告说他们至少评估过 1 例患者的蜱虫叮咬,47.6%的提供者诊断过至少 1 例莱姆病患者,61.9%的提供者在过去 1 年中治疗过至少 1 例莱姆病患者。来自莱姆病发病率高的州的提供者比来自莱姆病发病率低的州的提供者看到更多的患者因蜱虫叮咬和莱姆病就诊。在假设的关节炎膝关节(36.0%)或新发房室传导阻滞(39.5%)的高莱姆病发病率州的患者中,很少有提供者正确选择莱姆病检测为临床有用,而且所有类型的提供者在没有临床指征时都选择了检测。大多数提供者(69.7%)报告说他们经常向患者推荐预防蜱虫叮咬的方法。
许多提供者评估患者的蜱虫叮咬情况并治疗莱姆病患者,但关于适当检测的知识水平较低。提供者可能受益于关于适当的莱姆病诊断、检测和有效的蜱虫叮咬预防的针对性教育。