Behavioural responses to perceived risk of tick-borne encephalitis: Vaccination and avoidance in the Baltics and Slovenia
Introduction
Epidemiologists increasingly recognize that human behavioural responses to perceived risk of infection are important in determining epidemic patterns [1]. The viral zoonosis tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is an excellent system within which to explore this because exposure to infected ticks, mainly in forest habitats, can be reduced or avoided. Alternatively, safe and up to 96–99% effective vaccines may be deployed [2]: in Europe ‘FSME Immun™’ is produced by Baxter [formerly Immuno] using an Austrian isolate (strain Neudoerfl), and ‘Encepur™’ is produced by Novartis [formerly Chiron, formerly Behring] using a German isolate (strain K23), and a Russian vaccine is produced by Virion, Tomsk and the Institute of Polyomyelitis and Viral Encephalitis, Moscow. Nevertheless, TBE incidence increased markedly in most countries during the 1990s. With no specific treatment, it is one of the most serious vector-borne infections of humans in many parts of Europe, Russia and some parts of northern Asia; the Western virus subtype in Europe causes a ca. 1% case fatality rate, long recovery processes, neurological sequelae and severely decreased quality of life [3], [4].
For vector-borne zoonoses, where humans do not play a role as natural amplifying hosts, there is a simple relationship between the percent vaccination in the human population and the percent reduction in incidence of infection as long as conditions are homogenous and risk factors do not change. This is well illustrated in Austria (Fig. 1) where ca. 85% reduction in annual TBE cases from ca. 300–700 in 1975–1982 to 40–100 in 1998–2005 was achieved by improving the vaccination coverage of the at-risk population to nearly 90% [2]. This is exceptional; vaccination in other European countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, and the Czech Republic, rarely exceeds ca. 10% [2], [5], [6], [7]. Populations, however, are rarely homogenous. The public health impact of even a modest degree of vaccination will be disproportionately increased if it is targeted correctly at people who are at high risk due to geographic location or work and leisure activities. Conversely, vaccinating people who are not at risk is wasteful and may also undermine confidence in the vaccine if the population impact is less than predicted. Knowing who is most at risk and who is least likely to use vaccines will improve targeting, and also throw light on behavioural responses to perceived risk.
In the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Slovenia, TBE incidence showed a particularly marked, but spatially variable, upsurge to reach the highest incidence levels (18–54 cases per 100,000 population) in Europe by the mid 1990s [8], [9]. In some areas, incidence then declined equally sharply. In this paper we examine the reciprocal relationships, both temporal and spatial, between vaccination up-take and TBE incidence in these countries. We also analyse socio-economic indicators of individual behaviour associated with exposure to ticks, and of the probability of being vaccinated. Altogether, the results highlight the influence of human behaviour in determining, and thereby potentially avoiding, the risk of infection.
Section snippets
TBE incidence and vaccination
Annual case numbers of TBE in each ‘county’ (admin level 1) of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, based on serological confirmation of all notified cases, mandatory from the 1970s to the present, were provided by each national Public Health Institute. These were converted to incidence per 100,000 of the population.
The same Public Health Institutes also provided official data, based on doctors’ returns, on the number of people vaccinated against TBE, or the number of vaccination doses
Vaccination rates: variation in time
Official statistics show an increase in the annual reported numbers of completed vaccination courses (third primary doses) from the mid 1990s that follows the increase in TBE incidence (Fig. 2). This is especially clear in Estonia and Latvia, where vaccination records over >30 years span the period of sharp increases in both TBE incidence and vaccination that coincided with political independence. During Soviet rule, when the state was responsible for immunisation against TBE, apart from some
Conclusions
TBE epidemiology is a highly dynamic system, with increases and decreases due to an increasingly understood and quantified proposed nexus of biological and socio-economic factors [28]. In the Baltic States and Slovenia, both the number of TBE cases and the number of vaccinations increased during the 1990s, the latter apparently in response to the former, presumably due to increasing perceived risk. In Latvia, however, after the peak in the 1990s, TBE incidence decreased markedly in almost all
Acknowledgements
Data for this study were supplied by the Health Protection Inspectorate and National Institute for Health Development in Estonia, the State Public Health Agency in Latvia, the Centre for Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control in Lithuania and the Communicable Disease Centre, Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia. This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant no. 070696/Z/03/Z), the Estonian Science Foundation (grant 5963) and EU grant
References (29)
- et al.
Tick-borne virus diseases of human interest in Europe
Clin Microbiol Infect
(2004) - et al.
Tick-borne encephalitis in Sweden and climate change
Lancet
(2001) - et al.
Study of the serological response after vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis in Sweden
Vaccine
(2007) Immunisation against tick-borne encephalitis by widely used vaccines: short-term history and current recommendations
Clin Microbiol Infect
(2005)- et al.
Tick-borne encephalitis in the Baltic States: identifying risk factors in space and time
Int J Med Microbiol
(2006) - et al.
Vectors of tick-borne diseases and epidemiological situation in Latvia in 1993–2002
Int J Med Microbiol
(2004) - et al.
Survival strategy of tick-borne encephalitis virus: cellular basis and environmental determinants
Zentralbl Bakteriol
(1999) Capturing human behaviour
Nature
(2007)- et al.
Field effectiveness of vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis
Vaccine
(2007) - et al.
Tick-borne encephalitis
Clin Infect Dis
(1999)
The shifting landscape of tick-borne zoonoses: tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme borreliosis in Europe
Philos Trans R Soc B
Health behaviour among Latvian adult population, 1998
Cited by (45)
The structure and behavioral patterns of the human population affected by ixodid tick bites in Irkutsk Region, Eastern Siberia, Russia
2024, Ticks and Tick-borne DiseasesBiodiversity in the Lyme-light: ecological restoration and tick-borne diseases in Europe
2023, Trends in ParasitologyTickborne Encephalitis Vaccines
2017, Plotkin's VaccinesBacterial Zoonoses: An Overview
2014, Molecular Medical MicrobiologyThe ecology of tick-borne diseases
2013, International Journal for ParasitologyCitation Excerpt :Following the independence from Soviet rule, the increase in TBE cases observed in the Baltic States was followed by a steep decrease, exceeding vaccination rates and acquired immunity in the population (Sumilo et al., 2008a). Together with the fact that high exposure rates to TBDs had been found to coincide with unemployment and a low income as well as not being vaccinated, Sumilo et al. (2008a) concluded that behavioural changes for risk avoidance must have driven the decrease in TBE incidence. In the developing world, where public health efforts are low compared with Europe or the USA, the establishment of avoidance behavior can also be observed.
Drivers, dynamics, and control of emerging vector-borne zoonotic diseases
2012, The LancetCitation Excerpt :The vaccination campaign against tick-borne encephalitis, for example, targeted children in Latvia in response to the massive upsurge in incidence in the early 1990s. This campaign, together with a reduction in high-risk activities in tick-infested forests (presumably as a result of enhanced awareness), effectively reduced the mean national incidence by 74% by 1999, with the greatest reductions in counties where incidence was previously highest.84 Even modest changes in societal structure and socioeconomic development can increase exposure to zoonoses; an awareness of changing risk would allow communication of appropriate warnings to alert unsuspecting members of the public.
- 1
Currently Said Business School, University of Oxford, UK.