MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900780124 · doi:10.1093/jtm/tay063

Perceptions of tick-borne encephalitis risk: a survey of travellers and travel clinics from Canada, Germany, Sweden and the UK

2018· article· en· W2900780124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cinzia Marano, Melissa Moodley, Elaine Melander, Laurence De Moerlooze, Hans Dieter Nothdurft

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Travel Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineTick-borne encephalitisTravel medicineFamily medicineVaccinationSample (material)DiseaseDemographyRisk perceptionEncephalitisEnvironmental healthPediatricsPerceptionPsychiatryImmunologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While the worldwide endemicity of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) has been increasing, a lack of awareness of the risks of this life-threatening disease may be leading to an underutilization of preventive measures among travellers to TBE-endemic regions. This study's objectives were to assess travellers' awareness of TBE and advice-seeking attitudes, and to evaluate practices of travel clinics regarding pre-travel advice. Methods: We used an online questionnaire to identify individuals aged 18-65 years residing in the UK, Germany, Canada and Sweden, who had travelled to TBE-endemic countries between 2013 and 2016. This sample was defined as the visit-risk sample. Of these, the first 375 respondents who reported that they had engaged in pre-defined at-risk activities (e.g. hiking in forests) were asked to complete an additional online survey and were included in the activity-risk sub-sample. We also used an online/phone questionnaire to interview travel clinic personnel. Results: The TBE visit-risk sample included 4375 individuals; 69% had heard of the disease and 32% had heard of a TBE vaccine. Before travelling, travellers most commonly sought information online (26%); fewer travellers consulted family doctors (8%) or travel clinics (5%). In the activity-risk sample, 79% of the travellers were aware of at least one correct TBE prevention measure; however, only 15% reported being vaccinated within the past 3 years, with 11% of vaccinated travellers doing so following a clinic's recommendation. One hundred and eighty travel clinic representatives responded and reported that TBE vaccination was recommended to an average of 61% of travellers to endemic regions. Vaccination-reminder services such as follow-up appointments, e-mail and text reminders were offered by 50% of the clinics. Conclusions: There is a need to increase awareness of the risk and prevention of TBE among travellers to endemic countries, and travel clinics could play an important role in this process. 5975671594001tay062media15975671594001.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Travel MedicineSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207