Recommendations for malaria prevention in moderate to low risk areas: travellers’ choice and risk perception
© Voumard et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015
Received: 7 January 2015
Accepted: 15 March 2015
Published: 1 April 2015
The considerable malaria decline in several countries challenges the strategy of chemoprophylaxis for travellers visiting moderate- to low-risk areas. An international consensus on the best strategy is lacking. It is essential to include travellers’ opinions in the decision process. The preference of travellers regarding malaria prevention for moderate- to low-risk areas, related to their risk perception, as well as the reasons for their choices were investigated.
Prior to pre-travel consultation in the Travel Clinic, a self-administered questionnaire was given to travellers visiting moderate- to low-risk malaria areas. Four preventive options were proposed to the traveller, i.e., bite prevention only, chemoprophylaxis, stand-by emergency treatment alone, and stand-by emergency treatment with rapid diagnostic test. The information was accompanied by a risk scale for incidence of malaria, anti-malarial adverse drug reactions and other travel-related risks, inspired by Paling palettes from the Risk Communication Institute.
A total of 391 travellers were included from December 2012 to December 2013. Fifty-nine (15%) opted for chemoprophylaxis, 116 (30%) for stand-by emergency treatment, 112 (29%) for stand-by emergency treatment with rapid diagnostic test, 100 (26%) for bite prevention only, and four (1%) for other choices. Travellers choosing chemoprophylaxis justified their choice for security reasons (42%), better preventive action (29%), higher efficacy (15%) and easiness (15%). The reasons for choosing stand-by treatment or bite prevention only were less medication consumed (29%), less adverse drug reactions (23%) and lower price (9%). Those who chose chemoprophylaxis were more likely to have used it in the past (OR = 3.0 (CI 1.7-5.44)), but were not different in terms of demographic, travel characteristics or risk behaviour.
When travelling to moderate- to low-risk malaria areas, 85% of interviewees chose not to take chemoprophylaxis as malaria prevention, although most guidelines recommend it. They had coherent reasons for their choice. New recommendations should include shared decision-making to take into account travellers’ preferences.
For non-immune travellers or migrants, the strategy of malaria prevention depends on the risk within the visited area, the season and the duration of stay , but also on the policy of the country from where the traveller sought advice before departure . Although all countries agree on prescribing chemoprophylaxis for high-risk endemic regions, recommendations for moderate- to low-risk areas, usually defined as a risk of one infection per 10,000 travellers , are variable [4-8]. Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Germany recommend stand-by emergency treatment and bite prevention [9,10] for these regions, whereas the majority of other countries recommend chemoprophylaxis. The Center for Disease Control recently replaced the term ‘stand-by emergency treatment’ with ‘reliable supply regimen’, considering its use in exceptional circumstances only and more as an adjuvant than an alternative to chemoprophylaxis .
In these moderate- to low-risk areas, taking chemoprophylaxis exposes travellers to a higher risk of severe adverse drug reactions than actually being affected by malaria [12-14]. The frequency of mild to moderate adverse drug reactions varies from 32-45% , underlining the fragile balance between risks and benefits. The rather low adherence of travellers to chemoprophylaxis (30-50%) adds to the controversy about its relevance .
Little is known about the preference of travellers in term of malaria prevention. Senn et al. highlighted the importance of the price in travellers’ choice of one or other medicine for chemoprophylaxis . However, to the knowledge of the authors, no study has addressed the question of what would be the travellers’ choice in terms of malaria prevention measures for moderate- to low-risk areas, should alternatives be proposed to them. In line with the current momentum of shared decision-making , the present study aims at better understanding travellers’ aspirations. The primary objective was to evaluate the personal preference of travellers visiting moderate- to low-risk malaria areas, depending on their perception of risk. The secondary objective was to investigate the reasons for their choice, and correlate it to their sociodemographic profile and risk behaviours.
The Travel Clinic in Lausanne is part of the Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine linked to the University Hospital. Health professionals (physicians and nurses) perform around 10,000 pre-travel consultations per year. All travellers attending the Travel Clinic for a pre-travel consultation were screened for eligibility by a research student. Included subjects were adults without pre-travel consultation in the previous year who were planning to visit moderate- to low-risk malaria areas, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO)  with adaptation by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) .
Prior to the pre-travel consultation, four study documents were given to each traveller: a informed consent form, a questionnaire, a table describing the four different malaria prevention methods (see Additional file 1), and a travel-related malaria risk scale. The questionnaire included questions about the sociodemographic profile and the travel pattern. Ten sociodemographic variables were collected: gender, age, country of origin, occupation (categorized according to the Occupational Classification from the International Labour Organization (CITP-08)), co-morbidities, usual treatments (including contraceptive pill), risk behaviours (alcohol consumption according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, active tobacco use and active or past drug consumption, including cannabis), dependent child or person at home, anti-malarial medication kept at home or used before (as prophylaxis or treatment). Also, seven variables concerning the type of travel were collected: destination (subcontinent according to UN classification ), duration of stay, reason for travel (tourism, visiting friends and relatives, humanitarian, business, expatriate), travelling companions (couple, alone, group organized by a travel agency, group outside a travel agency, family), rural/urban areas (rural for < two weeks, rural for ≥ two weeks, only urban, urban and rural, don’t know), and delay to access medical care (<24 hr, ≥24 hr, don’t know).
Following data collection, all travellers received the usual pre-travel advice by a physician or nurse according to the standard procedures used at the Travel Clinic, based on the Swiss FOPH guidelines.
For the qualitative data analysis, the reasons for each choice were classified into 12 categories: travel risk evaluation, security, efficacy, reactivity, easiness, price, medication consumed, adverse drug reactions, medical access, preventive action, diagnostic validation, peer advice/previous experience, and others. All analyses were descriptive. The investigation assessment of risk factors was performed through bivariate analyses to calculate odds ratio and confidence intervals. All data were collected in Microsoft Excel and analysed using Epi Info (CDC version 7.0). The protocol was approved by the ethical review board of the University of Lausanne (No 441/12).
Socio-demographic characteristics of the 391 travellers included
Age category (years)
Country of origin
Out of CH, endemic for malaria
Out of CH, non endemic for malaria
Managers and intellectual formation
Administrative or technical training
Farmers, workers, artisans
Jobless, pensioners or unknown
Usual treatment (including pill)
Risk behaviours (OH, tobacco, drugs)
Having 1 risk behaviour
Having 2 risks behaviours
Having all 3 risks behaviours
Dependent child or person at home
Anti-malarial medicine kept at home
Anti-malarial medicine used before
as prophylaxis or treatment
Travel characteristics of the 391 travellers included
Carribbean and Central America
Africa (United Republic of Tanzania only)*
Round the world
Duration of stay
Reason of travel
Visiting friends and relatives (VFR)
Group organized by a travel agency
Group outside a travel agency
Rural for <2 weeks
Rural for ≥ 2 weeks
Urban and rural
Delay to access medical care
Delay to access medical care
When provided with an illustrative figure that compared the risk of malaria, the risk of adverse drug reactions, and other travel-related risks, the travellers chose stand-by emergency treatment with or without rapid diagnostic test in first place (58%) followed by bite prevention only (26%), while only 15% chose chemoprophylaxis. If the preventive measures were free of charge, 76% of the travellers would have chosen the same method. No recommendation on malaria prevention currently includes travellers’ preferences. Considering the growing trend towards shared decision-making in healthcare, the high rate of travellers opting for not taking chemoprophylaxis calls for an adaptation of the guidelines to integrate travellers’ preferences.
The choice made by the traveller was coherent with the reason he/she gave to support his/her preferred option. The 15% of travellers who chose CP mentioned a ‘higher level of security’ and the ‘preventive action’ as main reasons, whereas the 85% of travellers who chose SBET +/- RDT or BP mentioned ‘fewer medication intake’ and ‘fewer adverse drug reactions’. Although not formally studied using a control group, the use of a risk scale inspired by Paling Palette probably helped the traveller to understand and perceive better his/her own risk. These findings indicate that the traveller is able to assess risk according to his/her perception and to weigh his/her own priorities. This is the essence of the shared decision-making process between client and health professional. One of the main challenges of shared decision-making is to create tools to « diagnose preference » . As the author says, this approach insures that patients or travellers get « the care they need and no less, the care they want and no more ». In this relational process, healthcare recognizes the patient’s own expertise, design by experience of illness, social circumstances, attitude to risk, values and preferences . Some travellers prefer to take a high but not severe risk of anti-malarial adverse event, some others prefer a low but severe risk of having a malaria. The healthcare professional requires advanced communication skills to present the risks and the different options, and decision aid can be a tool . In the present study, the travellers having previous experience of anti-malarial use in the past were feeling more comfortable with the medication risk than with the malaria risk as they were more likely to choose CP as prevention compared to the naive travellers.
The traveller’s choice should not be the main criterion to decide which recommendation to propose. However, his/her opinion should be integrated into the decision process, as recommended in the WHO Guidelines Review Committee . For malaria prevention, the consumer’s perspective has never been considered, which could explain the rather low adherence to the recommendations, especially to chemoprophylaxis . SBET is one among several options, but certainly not the sole one. Adding rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) might improve appropriateness of SBET use when a traveller is febrile. This needs to be investigated further and a study is ongoing in the Travel Clinic to assess travellers’ behaviour and satisfaction with this new diagnostic tool.
Caution should be applied since the present study has been conducted in a country where SBET is recommended for travellers visiting moderate- to low-risk malaria areas. One can thus consider that the people included in the study were familiar with the Swiss malaria prevention policy and more open to taking risks than other countries such as the USA. Also it could reflect the patient-centered perspective, defined by the Commonwealth Fund’s National Scorecard as ‘care delivered with the patient’s needs and preferences in mind’ , and where Switzerland is scored second in world ranking of health care systems by the Commonwealth Fund .
The findings of this study call for more consideration of travellers’ opinions and desires when establishing guidelines. As long as information is provided adequately, the traveller can take more responsibility for his/her own health, according to his/her own risk perceptions and beliefs. The latter should not be the only criterion, but one component of an integrated decision process. Such an approach may both increase adherence to malaria preventive measures and raise the credibility of travel medicine advisors across countries.
The authors thank N Baenziger-Bonjour, P Rieux and R Zanone for distribution of questionnaires and data entry; N Van Neyghem for his help in manuscript translation; the receptionists and nurses of the Travel Clinic for their collaboration; N Senn for advice on protocol development; L Rochat, P Rutz and R Auer for their critical review of the manuscript and suggestions.
- Genton B, D’Acremont V. Malaria prevention in travelers. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2012;26:637–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Calleri G, Behrens RH, Bisoffi Z, Bjorkman A, Castelli F, Gascon J, et al. Variability in malaria prophylaxis prescribing across Europe: a Delphi method analysis. J Travel Med. 2008;15:294–301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- WHO. World Malaria Report 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.Google Scholar
- Lars R. Who needs drug prophylaxis against malaria? My peronal view. J Travel Med. 2005;12:217–21.Google Scholar
- Behrens RH, Bisoffi Z, Björkman A, Gascon J, Hatz C, Jelinek T, et al. Malaria prophylaxis policy for travellers from Europe to the Indian Subcontinent. Malar J. 2006;5:7.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schlagenhauf P, Hommel M. Travellers’ malaria–‘one shoe does not fit all’. Malar J. 2011;10:129.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen LH, Wilson ME, Schlagenhauf P. Controversies and misconceptions in malaria chemoprophylaxis for travelers. JAMA. 2007;297:2251–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Steinhardt LC, Magill AJ, Arguin PM. Malaria chemoprophylaxis for travelers to Latin America. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85:1015–24.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Centre de Médecine des voyages, Institut de médecine sociale et préventive de l’Université de Zürich. Vaccinations et mesures antipaludiques, recommandations état mars 2014. Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique. 2014;13:233–55.Google Scholar
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tropenmedizin. Malaria. http://www.dtg.org/. Accessed 21 Aug 2012.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Information for International Travel 2012: The Yellow Book. Altanta: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 228-–243.Google Scholar
- Landry P, Iorillo D, Darioli R, Burnier M, Genton B. Do travelers really take their mefloquine malaria chemoprophylaxis? Estimation of adherence by an electronic pillbox. J Travel Med. 2006;13:8–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huzly D, Schönfeld C, Beuerle W, Bienzle U. Malaria chemoprophylaxis in German tourists: a prospective study on compliance and adverse reactions. J Travel Med. 1996;3:148–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Winokur S. Some find malaria drug worse than the disease. The San Francisco Examiner. 1998. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Some-find-malaria-drug-worse-than-disease-3089484.php. Accessed 12 Aug 2012.Google Scholar
- Schlagenhauf P, Tschopp A, Johnson R, Nothdurft HD, Beck B, Schwartz E, et al. Tolerability of malaria chemoprophylaxis in non-immune travellers to sub-Saharan Africa: multicentre, randomised, double blind, four arm study. BMJ. 2003;327:1078.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Behrens RH, Carroll B, Beran J, Bouchaud O, Hellgren U, Hatz C, et al. The low and declining risk of malaria in travellers to Latin America: is there still an indication for chemoprophylaxis? Malar J. 2007;6:114.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Senn N, D’Acremont V, Landry P, Genton B. Malaria chemoprophylaxis: what do the travelers choose, and how does pretravel consultation influence their final decision. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:1010–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cornuz J, Kuenzi B, Krones T. Shared decision making development in Switzerland: room for improvement! Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105:296–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Centre de Médecine des voyages, Institut de médecine sociale et préventive de l’Université de Zürich. Vaccinations et mesures antipaludiques, recommandations état juillet 2012. Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique. 2012;30:530.Google Scholar
- UN Classification 2003. http://unstats.un.org (2003). Accessed 28 Sept 2012.
- Paling J. The Paling Perspective Scale. The Risk Communication Institute. 2012. http://www.riskcomm.com/scales.Google Scholar
- Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327:745–8.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Paling J. Helping Patients Understand Risks: 7 Simple Strategies for Successful Communication. 2nd ed. Gainsville: Risk Communication Institute; 2006.Google Scholar
- Siegrist M, Orlow P, Keller C. The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:567–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Keller C, Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:483–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mulley AG, Trimble C, Elwyn G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter. BMJ. 2012;345:e6572.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Coulter A, Collins A. Making shared decision-making a reality. No decision about me, without me. 1st ed. London: The King’s Fund; 2011.Google Scholar
- Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- WHO. Handbook for guideline development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.Google Scholar
- Commonwealth Fund Commission. Why Not the Best? 2011. http://www.commonwealthfund.org. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.Google Scholar
- Davis K, Stremikis K, Squires D, Schoen C. Mirror, mirror on the wall. How the performance of the U.S. Health Care System compares internationally. The Commonwealth Fund. 2014. http://www.commonwealthfund.org. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.