MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163985572 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v2n2p80

Top 7 Issues in Medical Tourism: Challenges, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Directions for Research and Policy Development

2010· article· en· W2163985572 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jason Behrmann, Elise Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMedical tourismTourismPublic relationsHealth careBusinessHealth technologyService (business)MarketingEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical tourism is a general term that describes patients traveling to obtain health services. The growth of medical tourism is due to a broad range of motivators and increasingly, developing countries are seeking to capitalize on these flows and are linking medical care with actual tourist activities. This commercial linkage between healthcare and tourism is a rapidly developing and profitable industry that is attracting growing interest amongst health researchers. This article summarizes seven leading issues concerning medically-motivated travel that were identified by academic researchers during a November 2009 Symposium on the Implications of Medical Tourism for Canadian Health and Health Policy. These issues include emerging technologies, particular vulnerable populations, Canadian business ties to the industry, patient populations excluded from analysis, and comparative analyses between health service providers for medical travelers. This article aims to help guide researchers as they investigate ethical, legal, social, public health, and economic issues related to the growing medical tourism industry.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0120.017
Scholarly communication0.0270.020
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0150.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207