4.5 Article

Travel and health status:: a survey follow-up study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 96-100

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cki144

Keywords

travel; epidemiology; follow-up; survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To date there is little sound knowledge on the relationship between travel and health status as perceived by the traveller. Our aim was to investigate the frequency and risk factors of travel-associated illnesses and injuries and identify potential protective factors. Methods: All adults enrolled in a health insurance scheme who planned to travel in 2002 were eligible for participation in a baseline survey. Pre-travel written questionnaires and post-travel telephone interviews were conducted with responders. We analysed travel-associated health problems using descriptive methods and multivariate logistic regression. Results: From 8316 persons who returned a pre-travel questionnaire, a sample of 2384 were chosen, of whom 1471 completed post-travel interviews. 10.1% of all travellers reported travel-associated illnesses, and 1.8% suffered from injuries during travel. Among travellers to European destinations, 6.0% reported an illness as opposed to 16.2% of travellers to overseas destinations. Predictors for travel-associated illness were age < 30 years (OR 1.48), duration of travel > 4 weeks (OR 3.35) and travel destination. Perceived health status as scored by the travellers improved after travel. The frequency of medical consultations and personal health-related expenses decreased significantly shortly after travel. Conclusions: In this study, travel had a positive effect on the perceived health status of the traveller. The positive effects of travel seemed to outweigh the impact of health problems. Travel did not lead to increased health-related costs, neither in individual health expenses nor indirectly through increased medical consultation rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available