Indeed, the median travel duration was 8 days in the cohort study

Indeed, the median travel duration was 8 days in the cohort study, compared to 18 days in the sentinel study, introducing a possible bias in comparing results. In addition, the time to presentation at sentinel clinics was longer than the interval time between the end of travel and the telephone call in the cohort survey. Finally, the low proportion of travelers who sought pre-travel advice may account for a higher proportion of severe diseases in the patients presenting to sentinel clinics. Diarrhea was underrepresented in

sentinel surveillance data compared to the cohort survey data, which reflects the fact that the vast majority of patients suffering from diarrhea used self-treatment and did not consult a specialized sentinel clinic. We evidence here the complementary nature of using a cohort survey and sentinel surveillance data. We demonstrate that information regarding the incidence of common but mild health problems is better collected selleck inhibitor through a prospective cohort survey—although there are inherent biases even in this selleckchem approach because only people presenting for pre-travel advice will be included. However, it is very difficult to study the incidence of severe but relatively

uncommon travel-related illnesses prospectively because a very large sample size is required to observe adequate numbers of infrequent health outcomes. This underpins the logic of employing different methodological approaches to answer questions about morbidity during travel. The observation period for the surveillance data was significantly longer than for the cohort survey. A cohort survey extending over many years would obviously not be feasible, which is another advantage of combining

approaches. Such an innovative approach paints a clearer picture of the overall health risks for a specific destination and allows PIK3C2G the design of evidence-based recommendations for travelers. In the case of Senegal, our results suggest that effective protection of skin from arthropod bites, animal-related injuries, sun exposure, and contact with wet soil or non-ironed clothes should result in a significant reduction of travel-associated diseases. This document (C76F-C7D8-191C-6D83-35FF) was edited by American Journal Experts ([email protected]). The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest. “
“Background. Travel-associated health risks need to be balanced against the positive opportunities associated with interregional travel. As the perceived and real spectrum of health risks related to international travel increase both quantitatively and qualitatively, the need for more discriminating tools in clinical assessment for the purpose of mitigation, public health management, and research are needed. One group of international travelers identified as having increased risk of poor travel-related health outcomes are those who travel with the specific intent of visiting friends or relatives (VFR travelers).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>