Travelers’ Preferences for the Treatment and Prevention of Acute Diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A survey was designed to assess travelers' willingness to take antibiotic chemoprophylaxis against travelers' diarrhea (TD) or to intervene with antibiotic or symptomatic treatments. METHODS: A brief written questionnaire was administered to clients in North American (United States and Canadian) and European (UK and German) travel clinic waiting rooms to assess length, purpose, and destination of their upcoming trips; their perceived risk of developing TD at their destination; and their preferences for hypothetical treatment or chemoprophylaxis options, which included descriptions, but no mention of brand names, of a systemically absorbed antibiotic based on a fluoroquinolone, a nonabsorbed antibiotic based on rifaximin, and an over-the-counter antidiarrheal similar to loperamide. RESULTS: The 209 UK and German travelers planned significantly longer travel than the 277 US and Canadian travelers (25 vs 15 d, p < 0.001) and correctly recognized high risk of TD more often than the North Americans (81% vs 61%, p < 0.001). More of the North Americans preferred any therapy options compared with the Europeans; only 14% of the North Americans preferred no treatment compared with 29% of the Europeans (p < 0.001). More of the North Americans and the Europeans preferred the nonabsorbed antibiotic than the systemically absorbed antibiotic, regardless of if combined with the antidiarrheal agent. Significantly more of the Europeans preferred not to take antibiotic chemoprophylaxis than North Americans (66% vs 37%, p < 0.001). Among the North Americans, significantly more travelers preferred chemoprophylaxis with the nonabsorbed than the systemic antibiotic (45% vs 33%, p= 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Among the relatively small groups of travelers studied, the UK and German travelers were more cognizant of TD risk than US and Canadian travelers. The Europeans were less inclined to take chemoprophylaxis or treatment. Both groups preferred treatment or prophylaxis with the nonabsorbed antibiotic over the systemically absorbed antibiotic or the antidiarrheal agent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".