Table 3. Interactions with ticks among respondents in survey of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Kazakhstan*.

Human–tick interactions	No. respondents	% Respondents (95% CI)
Had a tick bite†	17	1.0 (0.3–3.3)
Handled tick with bare hands†	61	3.5 (1.1–10.3)
Method of tick disposal after bare hand removal, n = 27
Threw it out	1	3.2 (0.3–29.3)
Killed with bare hands†	1	0.5 (0–5.9)
Killed with object	16	93.6 (69.2–99.0)
Burned it	10	3.5 (0.6–18.8)
Number of tick bites in previous 4 mo	0	0
Method of human tick bite prevention‡
None	133	9.3 (3.9–20.8)
Long, layered clothing	694	68.8 (55.2–79.9)
Gloves	588	73.1 (60.5–82.9)
Pesticides in environment	267	13.8 (7.9–22.9)
Insect repellent on self, clothing	155	17.7 (10.0–29.3)
Avoiding woody areas	133	12.2 (4.1–31.0)
Avoiding unnecessary animal contact	111	13.9 (5.0–33.3)
Animal–tick interactions
Found ticks on livestock	486	29.7 (19.6–42.3)
Primary method used to remove ticks on livestock
Bare hands†	12	4.3 (1.2–15.0)
Gloved hands	95	29.8 (15.9–48.7)
With an object	291	51.7 (34.0–69.0)
Go to a clinic	15	3.3 (1.2–8.7)
Pour liquid mixture on animal	32	3.0 (1.2–7.1)
Burn the tick	6	0.7 (0.2–2.2)
Leave the tick	31	6.8 (2.6–16.3)
Use tick medication for animals	905	94.0 (76.0–98.8)

*Percentage weighted by calculating the inverse probability of selection and applying a poststratification adjustment to each stratum to account for nonresponses.
†High-risk tick interaction.
‡>1 response possible.