Last-minute travelers were defined as those travelers who planned their trip within 2 weeks from departure. Respondents who specifically stated that their main purpose for travel was to visit friends and relatives were considered VFRs. Knowledge of hepatitis A was determined by comparison of the risk for hepatitis A as perceived by the traveler with the actual
risk for hepatitis A, as described.8 To that end, all destinations (including those in malaria-endemic countries) were Panobinostat datasheet rated as low-, intermediate-, or high-risk destination for hepatitis A based on maps published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, USA.9
The accuracy (correct risk perception) was expressed as a percentage of maximal correctness, ranging from 0 to 100%. To determine find more the attitude (intended risk behavior) of participants toward hepatitis A, all participants were asked if they were planning to consume possibly contaminated food items such as tap water, ice cubes, raw shellfish, ice-cream, and salads. Each affirmative answer was scored with one point, whereas a negation was scored with 0 points. The final attitude score could range from 0 to 5; for convenience, the score was transformed to a 0 to 100% scale with the maximal risk score set at 100%. To have an indication of their practice (protection rate), travelers were considered to be protected against hepatitis A if they were either vaccinated for this trip, or fully vaccinated in the past (at least two doses of hepatitis A vaccine, or three doses of combined hepatitis A and B vaccine), or naturally immune;
others were considered to be unprotected. SPTLC1 Protection rate was expressed as a percentage of protected individuals and could range from 0 to 100%. To estimate the impact of KAP of the travel risk group of interest on relative risk for hepatitis A, a composite estimate was constructed by summing up the effects of the separate determinants. To that end, it was assumed that either a poor risk perception, intended risk-seeking behavior, or poor protection rates led to an equal increase in relative risk for hepatitis A. Several statistical analyses were made between travelers to high- and to low-to-intermediate-risk destinations: on one hand the so-called “between risk destinations” analysis: eg, the comparison of VFRs traveling to high-risk destinations versus VFRs traveling to low-to-intermediate-risk destinations) and on the other hand the so-called “within risk destination” analyses: eg, the comparison of solo travelers to high-risk destinations versus the remaining (non-solo) travelers to high-risk destinations.