Landman 2015.

Methods	Design: prospective cohort study Study dates: 19 August to 30 September 2013 Malaria transmission pattern and local antimalarial drug resistance: various Adverse event monitoring: participant self‐reported questionnaire
Participants	Number enrolled: 3207 emails sent, 1184 unique, valid responses received Inclusion criteria: "(volunteers in) Peace Corps offices of all 23 countries with active posts in the Africa region to all active Volunteers in‐country" Exclusion criteria: Volunteers serving in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa Region of recruitment: African region except Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa Factors influencing drug allocation: "all prophylaxis options (mefloquine, doxycycline, atovaquone‐proguanil) [are] equally available... They are instructed to individualize their choice of agent based on area‐specific recommendations, drug contraindications and precautions, drug tolerance, and dosing schedule" Country of malaria exposure: various: Togo (3.7%), Sierra Leone (6.3%), Uganda (7.8%), Liberia (5.6%), Malawi (2.0%), Cameroon (11.4%), Benin (10.2%), Burkina Faso (1.9%), Zambia (6.0%), Mozambique (4.5%), Ghana (10.8%), Rwanda (5.4%), Gambia (4.4%), Madagascar (11.1%), Swaziland (2.3%) Duration of exposure to malaria: various, not specified Type of participants: Peace Corps volunteers
Interventions	1. Mefloquine* 2. Atovaquone‐proguanil* 3. Doxycycline* *dosing regimen not specified
Outcomes	Included in the review: 1. Adverse effects; any, vertigo, headache, abnormal dreams, insomnia, anxiety, depression, psychosis 2. Adverse effects; other (any neuropsychiatric disorder, any gastrointestinal disorder, any skin or subcutaneous disorder, limb numbness, tinnitus, 'constitutional', genitourinary) 3. Measures of adherence to the drug regimen Outcomes assessed not included in the review: 4. Reasons for non‐adherence (not ascribed to prophylactic regimen, provided on aggregate), 5. Malaria knowledge 6. Health behaviours
Notes	Funding sources: not mentioned
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	1. Confounding: moderate The age, sex and BMI of included participants was not recorded. The destination and duration of travel was not reported by prophylactic regimen 2. Selection of participants into the study: serious 1184/3248 (36%) response rate 3. Measurement of interventions: moderate Travellers were asked to self‐report which prophylaxis they were taking at various time points during treatment 4. Departures from intended interventions: serious "Two hundred seventy‐six (35%) respondents reported having changed prophylaxis at some point during their service" Comment: this was not provided by prophylactic regimen 5. Missing data: low 703/781 (90%) participants reported data for adherence; 733/781 (94%) participants reported data for adverse events. Data were only included from the 2015 version of the publication 6. Measurement of outcomes: serious Comment: the outcome measure was subjective; participants and personnel were not blinded 7. Selection of the reported results: low All outcomes prespecified in the methods section were reported 8. Other: no information Study sponsor not mentioned