Health problems and health care seeking behavior among adult backpackers while traveling in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health problems among travelers in developing countries are not uncommon. Little is known about the occurrence of health problems and their impacts among backpackers in Thailand. The objective of this study was to assess the health problems and the health seeking behavior among adult backpackers who visited Thailand. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. Data were collected from foreign adult backpackers in Khao San Road, Bangkok. They were asked about their demographic data, health problems (if any), and health-care seeking behavior if they became ill. RESULTS: During May to July 2015, 420 backpackers were enrolled in this study. Of these, 51.4 % were male with a median age of 26.4 years. Up to 66.9 % were of European origin, while 17.4 % were North American. Fifty-eight percent sought pre-travel consultation before traveling. In this study, 10.2 % (43/420) of the participants reported at least health problem during travel. Most of them (79.1 %) had single episode of illness. Of this, diarrhea was the most common health problem (30.4 %), followed by abdominal pain (14.3 %), skin problems (8.9 %), respiratory problems (8.9 %), accident-associated injury (7.1 %), and febrile illness (7.1 %). One third of backpackers with health problems spontaneously recovered without any treatment, while nearly a quarter treated themselves with standby medication, and one in five had to buy over the counter medication. Just over 9 % of backpackers with a health problem sought medical care at a hospital. Among travellers with health problems, 72.1 % reported that their health problems did not significantly impact to their trip, while 23.3 % had to delay or postpone their trip for at least 1 day, and 4.7 % had to cancel some trip and/or activity. Longer duration of stay was significantly related to higher occurrence of health problems while traveling. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 10 % of adult backpackers experienced some health problems during their trip in Thailand. Although most of their health problems were mild, up to 22 % of backpackers with health problems need to seek medical care either in a clinic or in a hospital.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".