ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2026
Global perspectives on health tourism: A comparative review of research trends and future prospects (2000-2024).
Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study systematically reviews global research trends in health tourism (2000-2024), comparing international and Chinese scholarly perspectives to identify key themes, differences, and future directions for the field. We employed a systematic literature analysis approach, examining studies on health tourism definitions, classifications, motivations, influencing factors, evaluation systems, and development strategies. Comparative insights were drawn between international and Chinese research priorities. Findings reveal distinct research emphases: International scholars focus on global perspectives, interdisciplinary integration, cross-border service delivery, and ethical concerns, while Chinese researchers prioritize localized frameworks, regional characteristics, and policy applications. Both groups, however, share an interest in industrial integration and growth drivers. The study recommends that China enhance standardized evaluation methods, deepen quantitative research, and cultivate distinctive health tourism brands. Globally, researchers should strengthen qualitative studies with holistic perspectives and develop transferable models. Future research should integrate four key dimensions-theoretical advancement, technological innovation, and industrial collaboration-to address evolving demands in global health governance and industry transformation.
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.