Travel Agents and the Prevention of Health Problems among Travelers in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among the factors influencing travelers to seek preventive health advice before departure, the travel agent's recommendation plays an important role. The objective of our study was to document the practices and needs of travel agents in Québec (Canada) in relation to the prevention of health problems among travelers. METHODS: In June 2000, a cross-sectional descriptive survey was carried out among travel agents from all travel agencies in Québec. One agent per agency was asked to answer our questions. Data were collected using a 32-item telephone questionnaire. RESULTS: Altogether, 708 travel agents from the 948 agencies contacted answered our questionnaire (participation rate: 75%). Most respondents (81%) believed that the travel agent has a role to play in the prevention of health problems among travelers, especially to recommend that travelers consult a travel clinic before departure. Although over 80% of the agents interviewed mentioned recommending a visit to a travel clinic before an organized tour to Thailand or a backpacking trip in Mexico, less than half said they make the same recommendation for a stay in a seaside resort in Mexico. The majority of respondents were acquainted with the services offered in travel health clinics, and these clinics were the source of travel health information most often mentioned by travel agents. However, nearly 60% of the agents questioned had never personally consulted a travel clinic. When asked about the best way to receive information about travelers' health, more than 40% of respondents favoured receiving information newsletters from public health departments regularly whereas 28% preferred the Internet. CONCLUSION: Despite the limits of this study, our results should help the public health network better target its interventions aimed to inform travel agents on prevention of health problems among travelers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".