Exploring the Role of Nurses in Travel Medicine to Improve Service Performance in Travelers: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses play an important role in travel medicine. However, information about the role of nurses in travel medicine is still limited. This systematic literature review is aimed to exploring the role of nurses in travel medicine to improve service performance in travelers. This study was systematically compiled this review based on a literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. The inclusion criteria are articles about travel health nursing, complete original articles, articles written in English and non-review articles. The quality of the studies was also assessed based on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. About 5 out of 257 articles were selected from 3 electronic databases, namely PubMed, Ebsco Host, and Scopus. Analysis of the 5 articles found that the role of travel health caregivers differs from country to country. The primary role of nurses in travel health in the U.S. is to conduct are-travel counseling. Nurses in the Netherlands have the authority to prescribe medicines needed for tourists. In Iris nurses play a role in providing support to the mental health of individual tourists, while in Spain, nurses play a role in emergency care for tourists. Nurses play an important role in the health of travel, including health services for travelers before and during the trip. The results of this review add to the understanding of the role of nurses in travel medicine that contributes to improving nurse performance and tourist welfare.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".