OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing studies on pretravel health services provided by CPs, and the barriers, and facilitators.
METHODS: The PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for pertinent studies from their inception to February 2023. A manual search was also conducted of prominent travel medicine journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of the included studies. Potential barriers and facilitators were mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
RESULTS: There were twelve studies included in the review. Pretravel health advice was the most prevalent form of pretravel health services. Within ten domains of the TDF, various factors that either facilitate or impede the provision of pretravel health services by CPs were identified.
CONCLUSION: The provision of pretravel health services by CPs may be affected by a number of practitioner and organizational factors. The provision of pretravel health services can be facilitated by informational resources, training and education in travel medicine, and collaboration amongst healthcare providers.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase electronic databases, using keywords related to travel medicine and ophthalmology. Inclusion was based on the relevant contribution to epidemiology, aetiology, diagnostics, management and long-term consequences of travel-related eye conditions. The data were analysed using narrative synthesis.
KEY FINDINGS: This literature review highlighted that various travel-related eye conditions may occur. Travellers should be aware of the risk of travel-related ocular complications, which can arise from ocular infections, high-risk activities, high altitude and space travel. The economic and logistical challenges associated with medical tourism for ophthalmic procedures are discussed. For travellers with pre-existing eye conditions or visual impairment, careful planning may be needed to promote eye health and ensure safety of travel.
CONCLUSIONS: Travel medicine practitioners should have a comprehensive understanding of the major ocular risks associated with overseas travel, including eye infections, eye injuries and solar eye damage. Further research in this area can enhance overall wellness and alleviate the burden of ocular diseases on travellers. Evidence-based guidelines based on research can also improve the quality of care and prevent long-term vision problems.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in four electronic databases, namely Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and ProQuest to identify studies published in English from 1999 to July 2022. The inclusion criteria included the studies that reported an experience of providing dedicated travel health services by pharmacists and reported the outcomes and/or evaluation of these travel health services.
RESULTS: Nine studies were identified from the literature and included in the review. The pharmacists have provided a wide range of general and specialized travel health services including pre-travel risk assessment, routine and travel-related vaccination service, prescribing or recommending medications for travel-related illnesses, counseling and travel health advice. Overall, 94-100% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with pharmacist-managed travel health services. In addition, a good acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations for vaccines and travel-related mediations was reported with most studies reporting an overall acceptance rate of ≥75% (acceptance rate range: 48%-94.2%). In addition, high rates of acceptance of other nonpharmacological advices were noted.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists with training in travel medicine have successfully provided a wide range of general and specialized travel health services. Most travelers were highly satisfied with the pharmacy-based travel health services and accepted the pharmacist recommendations.
METHOD: Variables included in our model are categorized into four pillars: (i) incidence of cases, (ii) reliability of case data, (iii) vaccination, and (iv) variant surveillance. These measures are combined based on weights that reflect their corresponding importance in risk assessment within the context of the pandemic to calculate the risk score for each country. As a validation step, the outcome of the risk stratification from our model is compared against four countries.
RESULTS: Our model is found to have good agreement with these benchmarked risk designations for 27 out of the top 30 countries with the strongest travel ties to Malaysia (90%). Each factor within this model signifies its importance and can be adapted by governing bodies to address the changing needs of border control policies for the recommencement of international travel.
CONCLUSION: In practice, the proposed model provides a turnkey solution for nations to manage transmission risk by enabling stakeholders to make informed, evidence-based decisions to minimize fluctuations of imported cases and serves as a structure to support the improvement, planning, and activation of public health control measures.