HIV, for which risk was overestimated by 75% of our FBT, has received extensive public media attention worldwide, and Shell followed suit between 2003 and 2006 by launching awareness programs in over 60 countries. We postulate that global efforts to focus detailed information on high-risk groups only would aid in dispelling disproportionate fear among those at low risk. The statistical association of Afatinib datasheet typhoid risk overestimation with seeking company health advice demonstrates overexaggeration of typhoid

risk specifically within Shell’s travel clinic.[11] More careful evaluation of the real typhoid risk to the traveler would allow Shell health care professionals to reduce the number of unnecessary typhoid vaccinations. More accurate knowledge will nevertheless do little to reduce infectious disease-related morbidity if it does not lead to preventative

check details behavior. For this, adequate time to complete required vaccination schedules is paramount, and it is therefore of concern that almost one third (27%) of trips were planned within 2 weeks of departure. There is evidence to suggest that both short-notice and business travelers tend to adopt more high-risk behavior.[12] We cannot make conclusive statements about compliance, as preventative behavior was not measured in our survey. However, these previous findings imply that the sizeable group of Shell FBT embarking on short-notice trips may be at higher risk of acquiring disease

than the rest of the cohort. Several drawbacks to this study require attention. First, self-registration of FBT and the voluntary nature of the questionnaire may have introduced responder bias; FBT with more confidence in the accuracy of their risk perception, for instance, may have been more likely to complete the survey, thus raising knowledge scores. Second, our specific FBT definition also necessitates caution when comparing this cohort to other business travelers. Additionally, traveler risk depends as much on the individual travel profile as on trip location, so WHO country prevalence data are an imprecise proxy marker for traveler risk. The 55% FBT underestimation Baf-A1 cost of polio risk, for instance, is artificially high. Wild transmission occurring within local populations of countries with poorly implemented childhood immunization programs (including the common FBT destinations of India and Nigeria) is of negligible actual risk to a vaccinated traveler.[13] Our study would have benefited greatly from closer assessment of vaccination status, as well as trip features such as location, hygiene standards, access to health services, and FBT adherence to simple prevention measures. We can only hypothesize, based on the high level of compliance to malaria prophylaxis among the same FBT (92%),[5] that adherence to prevention measures for other infectious diseases would also be high.