Comprehensive Travel Health Education for Tour Guides: Protocol for an Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Tourists are at risk of experiencing health problems during their travel. However, even though tour guides have the potential to become travel health promoters, their participation has not been optimal. Objective This study aims to develop a comprehensive travel health education model to help tour guides improve health information delivery to tourists. Methods This is an exploratory sequential mixed methods research. The first phase consisted of a qualitative study with an informed grounded theory design. In-depth interviews were carried out with tour guides from all language divisions and policymakers of the Indonesian Tour Guide Association Bali Branch or Himpunan Pramuwisata Indonesia Daerah Bali (HPI Bali). The interview guidelines were developed based on the theory of planned behavior and identity theory. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. In the interim phase, a travel health education model and questionnaire were developed based on the qualitative findings. The initial model and its instruments were finetuned after consultation with travel medicine and health promotion experts. Furthermore, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were tested on 30 tour guides. The second phase consisted of a quantitative study with a randomized pretest-posttest control group design. A total of 76 tour guides in the intervention group received comprehensive travel health education, while 76 in the control group received no specific intervention. Outcome variables (ie, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, actual behavioral control, role identity, and behavioral intention) were measured at baseline (T0), after the online training (T1), before information sharing via WhatsApp (T2), a month after the start of the WhatsApp intervention (T3), and at the end of the WhatsApp intervention (T4). The mean difference of each outcome variable before and after the intervention will be compared between the intervention and control groups. Thereafter, the quantitative and qualitative findings will be integrated into a joint display. Results The qualitative phase was conducted through in-depth interviews with 21 informants who included tour guides and policymakers from HPI Bali from May to June 2021. The education model, educational materials, and questionnaire were developed based on the qualitative findings and consultation with experts. The education model consists of online training and information sharing through WhatsApp and was trialed with tour guides from November 2021 to February 2022. As of April 2022, this study is in the quantitative data analysis stage. Conclusions A travel health education model was developed based on qualitative findings and consultation with experts. The model was tested with tour guides, and a series of self-administered questionnaires were completed. This study is in the quantitative data analysis stage and will continue by integrating qualitative and quantitative findings into a joint display. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961983; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04961983
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 | 0,053 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,062 | 0,010 |
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 ».