ArticleJournal of travel medicine2025
Travel to malaria-endemic areas: using digital geo-location to assess potential exposure risks and health behaviours.
Article in Journal of travel medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Estimating the burden of imported malaria in the Asia Pacific region: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of travel medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTravellers frequently visit popular destinations like Brazil, India, Peru, Thailand and Tanzania, each presenting varying malaria risks. The extent to which travellers enter high-risk malaria-endemic areas in destinations with heterogeneous malaria risk remains unclear. We used geo-location via a smartphone application to (i) describe where travellers go within countries with heterogeneous malaria risk (Brazil, India, Peru, Thailand) and (ii) compare mosquito bite prevention behaviours between these destinations and Tanzania, considered entirely high risk for malaria.
methodsThis analysis is a sub-study of the Tracking of Urgent Risks in Swiss Travellers (TOURIST2) cohort, which prospectively recruited 1000 travellers (≥18 years, travelling ≤4 weeks) from Swiss travel clinics (Zurich and Basel) between September 2017 and April 2019. We included 734 travellers to Brazil, India, Peru, Thailand and Tanzania who provided geo-location data. Daily health and geo-location data were collected using a smartphone application. Malaria risk was categorized using 2022 malaria maps from the Swiss Expert Committee for Travel Medicine.
resultsOf the 734 travellers, 525 travelled to Brazil, India, Peru and Thailand and 225 to Tanzania. In Brazil, India, Peru and Thailand, only 2% (n = 13) visited high-risk malaria areas. In Peru, 4% (n = 4) visited a high-risk area; in Brazil, 3% (n = 6); in Thailand, 2% when crossing the border into Myanmar (n = 3); and in India, 0%. Travellers to high-risk areas were more often male (62%), slightly older (median age 42.0) and planned longer trips (median 23.0 days) than other travellers. No participants were diagnosed with malaria. Travellers to Brazil, India, Peru and Thailand used mosquito bite prevention measures less frequently than travellers to Tanzania. Those in Tanzania had higher, but still suboptimal, use of insect spray (65% of travel days).
conclusionsTravellers to Brazil, India, Peru and Thailand rarely visited high-risk malaria areas, and their adherence to mosquito bite prevention measures was generally low. In Tanzania, adherence was higher but still suboptimal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.