| Title |
Attitudes and awareness of medical assistance while traveling abroad
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Globalization and Health, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12992-018-0382-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yi-Hsuan Lee, Chia-Wen Lu, Pei-Zu Wu, Hsien-Liang Huang, Yi-Chun Wu, Kuo-Chin Huang |
| Abstract |
With globalization, more and more people travel to countries where they are at risk of injuries and travel-related diseases. To protect travelers' health, it is crucial to understand whether travelers accurately perceive medical assistance resources before and during their trips. This study investigated the need, awareness, and previous usage of overseas emergency medical assistance services (EMAS) among people traveling abroad. Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to patients (n = 500) at a travel clinic in Taipei, Taiwan. The results showed that EMAS were important, especially in the following categories: 24-h telephone medical consultation (91.8%), emergent medical repatriation (87.6%), and assistance with arranging hospital admission (87.4%). Patients were less aware of the following services: arrangement of appointments with doctors (70.7%) and monitoring of medical conditions during hospitalization (73.0%). Less than 5% of respondents had a previous experience with EMAS. EMAS are considered important to people who are traveling abroad. However, approximately 20-30% of travelers lack an awareness of EMAS, and the percentage of travelers who have previously received medical assistance through these services is extremely low. The discrepancy between the need and usage of EMAS emphasizes the necessity to adapt EMAS materials in pre-travel consultations to meet the needs of international travelers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 24% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 21% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,794,331
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#566
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,578
of 326,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#24
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.