Canadian medical tourism companies that have exited the marketplace: Content analysis of websites used to market transnational medical travel
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Medical tourism companies play an important role in promoting transnational medical travel for elective, out-of-pocket medical procedures. Though researchers are paying increasing attention to the global phenomenon of medical tourism, to date websites of medical tourism companies have received limited scrutiny. This article analyzes websites of Canadian medical tourism companies that advertised international healthcare but ultimately exited the marketplace. Using content analysis of company websites as an investigative tool, the article provides a detailed account of medical tourism companies that were based in Canada but no longer send clients to international health care facilities. METHODS: Internet searches, Google Alerts, searches on Google News Canada and ProQuest Newsstand, and searches of an Industry Canada database were used to locate medical tourism companies located in Canada. Once medical tourism companies were identified, the social science research method of content analysis was used to extract relevant information from company websites. Company websites were analyzed to determine: 1) where these businesses were based; 2) the destination countries and medical facilities that they promoted; 3) the health services they advertised; 4) core marketing messages; and 5) whether businesses marketed air travel, hotel accommodations, and holiday excursions in addition to medical procedures. RESULTS: In total, 25 medical tourism companies that were based in Canada are now defunct. Given that an estimated 18 medical tourism companies and 7 regional, cross-border medical travel facilitators now operate in Canada, it appears that approximately half of all identifiable medical tourism companies in Canada are no longer in business. 13 of the previously operational companies were based in Ontario, 7 were located in British Columbia, 4 were situated in Quebec, and 1 was based in Alberta. 14 companies marketed medical procedures within a single country, 9 businesses marketed health care at 2 or more destination nations, and 2 companies did not specify particular health care destinations. 22 companies operated as "generalist" businesses marketing many different types of medical procedures. 3 medical tourism companies marketed "specialist" services restricted to dental procedures or organ transplants. In general, medical tourism companies marketed health services on the basis of access to affordable, timely, and high-quality care. 16 businesses offered to make travel arrangements, 20 companies offered to book hotel reservations, and 17 medical tourism companies advertised holiday excursions. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides a detailed empirical analysis of websites of medical tourism companies that were based in Canada but exited the marketplace and are now inoperative. The article identifies where these companies were located in Canada, what countries and health care facilities they selected as destination sites, the health services they advertised, how they marketed themselves in a competitive environment, and what travel-related services they promoted in addition to marketing health care. The paper reveals a fluid marketplace, with many medical tourism companies exiting this industry. In addition, by disclosing identities of companies, providing their websites, archiving these websites or print copies of websites for future studies, and analyzing content of medical tourism company websites, the article can serve as a useful resource for future studies. Citizens, health policy-makers, clinicians, and researchers can all benefit from increased insight into Canada's medical tourism industry.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».