MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069397778 · doi:10.2310/7060.2003.35765

Evaluation of a Public Health Newsletter Intended for Travel Agents

2006· article· en· W2069397778 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvie Provost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Travel Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDestinationsTravel medicinePublic healthAgency (philosophy)Family medicineTourismNursingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Travel agents are in a key position to encourage travelers to seek consultation in travel clinics. Since the beginning of the year 2000, a newsletter specifically designed to sensitize travel agents to travel health has been published by the public health authorities and distributed to all travel agencies in Quebec. This study was undertaken to evaluate the utilization and appreciation of the newsletter by travel agents and its impact on preventive practices. METHODS: During the autumn of 2001, a cross-sectional descriptive survey was carried out among travel agencies in Quebec. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire sent by fax with a postal follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 252 of the 950 travel agencies contacted (27%) answered our questionnaire. In all, 78% of respondents said their agency receives the newsletter. Among these agencies, the majority of respondents considered that the subjects discussed in the newsletter are interesting (often or in general: 96%), that the subjects and preventive recommendations for travel destinations are useful in the travel agent's practice (often or in general: 89%), and generally presented in an adequate way (96%). According to the respondents, the newsletter encouraged them, often or very often, to inform travelers about travel-related health problems (70%) or to recommend a consultation in a travel clinic (63%). The impact of the newsletter on the recommendation to consult was greater among agents having more than 10 years' experience (odds ratio [OR] 3.2). When asked about the best way to send them the newsletter, only 31% identified bulk mailing, which was the current mode of distribution. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction rate with the newsletter appears to be high among respondents who receive it. However, the low response rate to the survey may indicate that as a whole, the travel agents' interest in the newsletter is mitigated. Despite the limitations of this study, the results will allow us to modify some aspects of the publication, especially regarding its distribution.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Travel MedicineSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207