6% perceived the risk as high and 3.9% gave the risk as unknown. Pre-travel health advice was sought by 82% (n = 169) of those with a perceived high malaria risk at destination, by 54% (n = 54) of those with a perceived low risk, and by 41% (n = 7) of those with a perceived absent malaria risk (p = 0.001, data not shown). As shown in Table 4, the proportion of travelers carrying prophylaxis differed depending on the actual risk of malaria

at destination (p < 0.001). A company source of advice was positively associated with carrying malaria prophylaxis to high-risk (RR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.18–4.49) and low-risk (RR = 3.12, 95% CI: 1.04–9.37) destinations (Table 2). However, FBT who received company advice were also more likely to carry malaria prophylaxis when it was not necessary to do so (ie, when traveling to no-risk destinations; RR = 3.87, 95% CI: 1.22–12.30): one in five of these travelers selleck chemicals were unnecessarily carrying malaria prophylaxis (Table

2). The proportion of travelers carrying an appropriate anti-malaria drug regimen was positively associated with receiving company advice among those traveling to high-risk destinations (RR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.21–3.67), but not for those traveling to low- or no-risk destinations. Sixty-eight percent (n = 119) of travelers to a high-risk area were Enzalutamide molecular weight carrying an appropriate anti-malaria drug regimen; for travelers to low-risk areas this was only 21% (n = 9). Advice as to which tablets to use was Atorvastatin provided in 68.4% by the company (occupational health physician or nurse). The company Intranet was used as a sole source by 6.6% and an additional 9.2% used multiple sources, but this always included an occupational health source of information. The remainder (9.2%) used miscellaneous sources and 6.6% did not specify the source. Most anti-malarials

were taken for prevention (75.3%), 2.5% for standby treatment, and 22% for both reasons. During the time this study was conducted, the occupational health department did not advise standby emergency treatment. Atovaquone/proguanil was by far the most commonly reported drug (44.6%), followed by mefloquine (14.3%), chloroquine (21.5%), and proguanil (14.8). Quinine (3.5%) and halofantrine (1%) were much less common. No one reported the use of doxycycline or artemether/lumefantrine. The reasons why FBT traveling to a malarious area did not carry malaria prophylaxis varied widely. There was no significant difference in carrying prophylaxis between FBT traveling to rural, urban, or beach destinations (Table 4). The majority stated that they were advised not to take tablets (39.5%). The second largest group (22.5%) judged that it was not necessary; 14% said they did not know why; for 13% the answers were very miscellaneous, and 7% had a dislike for all tablets in general. All other categories such as “I took the risk,”“prophylaxis not being deemed effective,”“forgetfulness,” and “allergy” contributed less than 6%.