Understanding the secondary outcomes of international travel measures during the covid-19 pandemic: a scoping review of social impact evidence.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Globalization and Health Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1186/s12992-024-01064-6
Kelley Lee, Salta Zhumatova, Catherine Z Worsnop, Ying Liu Bazak
{"title":"Understanding the secondary outcomes of international travel measures during the covid-19 pandemic: a scoping review of social impact evidence.","authors":"Kelley Lee, Salta Zhumatova, Catherine Z Worsnop, Ying Liu Bazak","doi":"10.1186/s12992-024-01064-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessment of the effective use of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on public health goals, namely limiting virus introduction and onward transmission. However, risk-based approaches includes the weighing of public health goals against potential social, economic and other secondary impacts. Advancing risk-based approaches thus requires fuller understanding of available evidence on such impacts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of existing studies of the social impacts of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying a standardized typology of travel measures, and five categories of social impact, we searched 9 databases across multiple disciplines spanning public health and the social sciences. We identified 26 studies for inclusion and reviewed their scope, methods, type of travel measure, and social impacts analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The studies cover a diverse range of national settings with a strong focus on high-income countries. A broad range of populations are studied, hindered in their outbound or inbound travel. Most studies focus on 2020 when travel restrictions were widely introduced, but limited attention is given to the broader effects of their prolonged use. Studies primarily used qualitative or mixed methods, with adaptations to comply with public health measures. Most studies focused on travel restrictions, as one type of travel measure, often combined with domestic public health measures, making it difficult to determine their specific social impacts. All five categories of social impacts were observed although there was a strong emphasis on negative social impacts including family separation, decreased work opportunities, reduced quality of life, and inability to meet cultural needs. A small number of countries identified positive social impacts such as restored work-life balance and an increase in perceptions of safety and security.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While international travel measures were among the most controversial interventions applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, given their prolonged use and widespread impacts on individuals and populations, there remains limited study of their secondary impacts. If risk-based approaches are to be advanced, involving informed choices between public health and other policy goals, there is a need to better understand such impacts, including their differential impacts across diverse populations and settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12747,"journal":{"name":"Globalization and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Globalization and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01064-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Assessment of the effective use of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on public health goals, namely limiting virus introduction and onward transmission. However, risk-based approaches includes the weighing of public health goals against potential social, economic and other secondary impacts. Advancing risk-based approaches thus requires fuller understanding of available evidence on such impacts.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review of existing studies of the social impacts of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying a standardized typology of travel measures, and five categories of social impact, we searched 9 databases across multiple disciplines spanning public health and the social sciences. We identified 26 studies for inclusion and reviewed their scope, methods, type of travel measure, and social impacts analysed.

Results: The studies cover a diverse range of national settings with a strong focus on high-income countries. A broad range of populations are studied, hindered in their outbound or inbound travel. Most studies focus on 2020 when travel restrictions were widely introduced, but limited attention is given to the broader effects of their prolonged use. Studies primarily used qualitative or mixed methods, with adaptations to comply with public health measures. Most studies focused on travel restrictions, as one type of travel measure, often combined with domestic public health measures, making it difficult to determine their specific social impacts. All five categories of social impacts were observed although there was a strong emphasis on negative social impacts including family separation, decreased work opportunities, reduced quality of life, and inability to meet cultural needs. A small number of countries identified positive social impacts such as restored work-life balance and an increase in perceptions of safety and security.

Conclusions: While international travel measures were among the most controversial interventions applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, given their prolonged use and widespread impacts on individuals and populations, there remains limited study of their secondary impacts. If risk-based approaches are to be advanced, involving informed choices between public health and other policy goals, there is a need to better understand such impacts, including their differential impacts across diverse populations and settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解科维德-19 大流行期间国际旅行措施的次要结果:社会影响证据的范围审查。
背景:对 COVID-19 大流行期间有效使用国际旅行措施的评估侧重于公共卫生目标,即限制病毒传入和继续传播。然而,基于风险的方法包括权衡公共卫生目标与潜在的社会、经济和其他次要影响。因此,推进基于风险的方法需要更充分地了解有关此类影响的现有证据:我们对 COVID-19 大流行期间国际旅行措施的社会影响的现有研究进行了范围审查。我们采用标准化的旅行措施类型和五个社会影响类别,搜索了跨越公共卫生和社会科学多个学科的 9 个数据库。我们确定了 26 项可纳入的研究,并审查了其范围、方法、旅行措施类型以及所分析的社会影响:这些研究涵盖了不同的国家环境,重点关注高收入国家。研究对象包括出境或入境旅行受阻的各类人群。大多数研究集中在 2020 年,当时旅行限制措施被广泛采用,但对长期使用旅行限制措施的广泛影响的关注有限。研究主要采用定性或混合方法,并根据公共卫生措施进行调整。大多数研究侧重于旅行限制,将其作为一种旅行措施,通常与国内公共卫生措施相结合,因此很难确定其具体的社会影响。所有五类社会影响都被观察到了,但主要强调的是负面社会影响,包括家庭分离、工作机会减少、生活质量下降以及无法满足文化需求。少数国家指出了积极的社会影响,如恢复了工作与生活的平衡,提高了安全感:尽管国际旅行措施是 COVID-19 大流行期间最有争议的干预措施之一,但鉴于其长期使用以及对个人和人群的广泛影响,对其次生影响的研究仍然有限。如果要推进基于风险的方法,在公共卫生和其他政策目标之间做出明智的选择,就需要更好地了解这些影响,包括对不同人群和环境的不同影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Globalization and Health
Globalization and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: "Globalization and Health" is a pioneering transdisciplinary journal dedicated to situating public health and well-being within the dynamic forces of global development. The journal is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that explores the impact of globalization processes on global public health. This includes examining how globalization influences health systems and the social, economic, commercial, and political determinants of health. The journal welcomes contributions from various disciplines, including policy, health systems, political economy, international relations, and community perspectives. While single-country studies are accepted, they must emphasize global/globalization mechanisms and their relevance to global-level policy discourse and decision-making.
期刊最新文献
The adoption of international travel measures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive analysis. Capturing sources of health system legitimacy in fragmented conflict zones under different governance models: a case study of northwest Syria. Protecting whose welfare? A document analysis of competition regulatory decisions in four jurisdictions across three harmful consumer product industries. Assessing the health status of migrants upon arrival in Europe: a systematic review of the adverse impact of migration journeys. How can advocates leverage power to advance comprehensive regulation on ultra-processed foods? learning from advocate experience in Argentina
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1