Examining medical tourists' intention to visit a tourist destination: Application of an extended MEDTOUR scale in a cosmetic tourism context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Behavioral studies of medical tourists are still limited despite a recent and rapid boom in both the business and academic fields. In 2011, Martin, Ramamonjiarivelo, and Martin proposed their MEDTOUR scale to better understand medical tourists' intention to seek treatment overseas. However, the scale has not been validated through application in a different context to date. The present study aims to fill this gap by examining its reliability and applying it in an extended model with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Based on the results of the data collected from Chinese adults, the MEDTOUR scale achieved an acceptable level of factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity. Support was confirmed for all hypotheses with a relatively weak relation between perceived risk and attitude, as well as perceived behavioral control and behavior intention. This study's findings fully support the prediction of behavior intention to travel to a foreign country for medical treatment and provides some useful findings to help medical tourism marketers and hospitals in developing their strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it