Some limitations of this study deserve attention The study does

Some limitations of this study deserve attention. The study does not allow determining whether the observed reactions are indeed a response to a change of residence or rather a response to a change of routine associated with a change of residence. However, in both cases, novelty is the common Daporinad molecular weight denominator to which individuals react. Future studies will have to address this issue. The interpretation of the observed responses as stress-reactions is tentative as no specific psychological measures of stress were used. However, as reactions to novelty commonly are described as stress–responses in literature,[10, 11, 50] we consider interpreting the findings as “stress–response”

as appropriate. A selection bias cannot be ruled out as study participants were solely recruited from individuals planning a stay at the health resort. However, spa therapy being covered by health insurance in Austria, selection based on income or

education is unlikely. In conclusion, this study shows that a travel-related temporary change of residence (CoR) leads to a mild stress response in humans as documented by an increase in BP and a disruption of sleep. BP responded already on DNA Damage inhibitor the day before CoR, indicating the effect of travel anticipation. Individual differences did not affect the response to any large extent. The findings have several implications. First, humans are sensitive to staying overnight in a novel environment. Second, individuals looking for restoration VDA chemical should consider several day stays as the restorative potential of a single day may be dampened by the novelty response. Third, tourist providers possibly could decrease the novelty response by providing experientially accessible information so tourists can get a “feeling” for their destination beforehand. Fourth, vacation studies and studies on resort-based spa therapy should not rely on measures taken on the days immediately preceding or following the onset of the stay, as these measures could be distorted by

the documented novelty response. The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest. “
“Objective. To evaluate whether changes in attack rates of fecal-orally transmitted diseases among travelers are related to changes in pretravel vaccination practices or better hygienic standards at travel destination. Methods. National surveillance data on all laboratory-confirmed cases of travel-related hepatitis A, shigellosis, and typhoid fever diagnosed in the Netherlands from 1995 to 2006 were matched with the number of Dutch travelers to developing countries to calculate region-specific annual attack rates. Trends in attack rates of non-vaccine-preventable shigellosis were compared with those of vaccine-preventable hepatitis A and typhoid fever. Trends were also compared with three markers for hygienic standards of the local population at travel destinations, drawn from the United Nations Development Programme database: the human development index, the sanitation index, and the water source index.

Comments are closed.