ReviewJournal of travel medicine2025
Economic value of pre-travel health interventions for communicable diseases in international travellers.
Review in Journal of travel medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPre-travel health interventions can reduce the acquisition of communicable diseases and decrease the risk of transmission during or after international travel. We sought to inform policy and research priorities with a scoping literature review of studies that assess the cost-effectiveness of pre-travel interventions.
methodsWe assessed 44 economic evaluation studies published from 1946-2023, regarding pre-travel prevention of hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, malaria, rabies, travellers' diarrhoea, cholera, polio, typhoid fever, measles, and Japanese encephalitis.
resultsPublished studies demonstrate that hepatitis A vaccination, malaria chemoprophylaxis and typhoid vaccination for people travelling to highly endemic settings are likely to be cost-effective, as is measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. The cost-effectiveness of other pre-travel interventions is more sensitive to travel frequency and duration, endemicity at the travel destination, travel purpose (e.g. business, leisure, visiting friends and relatives), risk perceptions (e.g. adherence to care plan, choosing to vaccinate), and costs.
conclusionsCost-effectiveness analyses of pre-travel interventions can inform the value of such interventions, but such analyses depend on the availability of high-quality data regarding clinical outcomes and costs. We propose that international, collaborative networks should collect data and leverage novel technologies to expand the evidence base regarding the risks of exposure, clinical outcomes, risk perception, and costs associated with pre-travel interventions. This evidence base can inform recommendations for specific groups of travellers and the formulation of population-specific health policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.