Comprehensive Travel Health Education for Tour Guides: Protocol for an Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tourists are at risk of experiencing health problems during their travel. However, even though tour guides have the potential to become travel health promoters, their participation has not been optimal. Objective This study aims to develop a comprehensive travel health education model to help tour guides improve health information delivery to tourists. Methods This is an exploratory sequential mixed methods research. The first phase consisted of a qualitative study with an informed grounded theory design. In-depth interviews were carried out with tour guides from all language divisions and policymakers of the Indonesian Tour Guide Association Bali Branch or Himpunan Pramuwisata Indonesia Daerah Bali (HPI Bali). The interview guidelines were developed based on the theory of planned behavior and identity theory. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. In the interim phase, a travel health education model and questionnaire were developed based on the qualitative findings. The initial model and its instruments were finetuned after consultation with travel medicine and health promotion experts. Furthermore, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were tested on 30 tour guides. The second phase consisted of a quantitative study with a randomized pretest-posttest control group design. A total of 76 tour guides in the intervention group received comprehensive travel health education, while 76 in the control group received no specific intervention. Outcome variables (ie, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, actual behavioral control, role identity, and behavioral intention) were measured at baseline (T0), after the online training (T1), before information sharing via WhatsApp (T2), a month after the start of the WhatsApp intervention (T3), and at the end of the WhatsApp intervention (T4). The mean difference of each outcome variable before and after the intervention will be compared between the intervention and control groups. Thereafter, the quantitative and qualitative findings will be integrated into a joint display. Results The qualitative phase was conducted through in-depth interviews with 21 informants who included tour guides and policymakers from HPI Bali from May to June 2021. The education model, educational materials, and questionnaire were developed based on the qualitative findings and consultation with experts. The education model consists of online training and information sharing through WhatsApp and was trialed with tour guides from November 2021 to February 2022. As of April 2022, this study is in the quantitative data analysis stage. Conclusions A travel health education model was developed based on qualitative findings and consultation with experts. The model was tested with tour guides, and a series of self-administered questionnaires were completed. This study is in the quantitative data analysis stage and will continue by integrating qualitative and quantitative findings into a joint display. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961983; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04961983
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 | 0.053 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.010 |
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".