MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619518005 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4442-1

“Ensure that you are well aware of the risks you are taking…”: actions and activities medical tourists’ informal caregivers can undertake to protect their health and safety

2017· article· en· W2619518005 on OpenAlexafffund
Valorie A. Crooks, Rebecca Whitmore, Jeremy Snyder, Leigh Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsTimelinePsychological interventionMedicineHealth careIntervention (counseling)Public healthMedical adviceNursingGuard (computer science)Qualitative researchVariety (cybernetics)Public relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When seeking care at international hospitals and clinics, medical tourists are often accompanied by family members, friends, or other caregivers. Such caregiver-companions assume a variety of roles and responsibilities and typically offer physical assistance, provide emotional support, and aid in decision-making and record keeping as medical tourists navigate unfamiliar environments. While traveling abroad, medical tourists' caregiver-companions can find themselves confronted with challenging communication barriers, financial pressures, emotional strain, and unsafe environments. METHODS: To better understand what actions and activities medical tourists' informal caregivers can undertake to protect their health and safety, 20 interviews were conducted with Canadians who had experienced accompanying a medical tourist to an international health care facility for surgery. Interview transcripts were subsequently used to identify inductive and deductive themes central to the advice research participants offered to prospective caregiver-companions. RESULTS: Advice offered to future caregiver-companions spanned the following actions and activities to protect health and safety: become an informed health care consumer; assess and avoid exposure to identifiable risks; anticipate the care needs of medical tourists and thereby attempt to guard against caregiver burden; become familiar with important logistics related to travel and anticipated recovery timelines; and take practical measures to protect one's own health. CONCLUSION: Given that a key feature of public health is to use research findings to develop interventions and policies intended to promote health and reduce risks to individuals and populations, the paper draws upon major points of advice offered by study participants to take the first steps toward the development of an informational intervention designed specifically for the health and safety needs of medical tourists' caregiver companions. While additional research is required to finalize the content and form of such an intervention, this study provides insight into what practical advice former caregiver-companions state should be shared with individuals considering assuming these roles and responsibilities in the future. In addition, this research draws attention to the importance of ensuring that such an intervention is web-based and readily accessible by prospective caregiver-companions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207