Search

Central Asian (CA) countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) are assumed to be one of the most attractive tourist destinations since this particular geographical location holds immense potential in tourism products. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the flourishing tourism sector of these countries has been immensely affected. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of Central Asian tourists' risk attitudes toward traveling during the COVID-19 pandemic through consideration of sociodemographic characteristics. The research was conducted during January through April 2021 based on a sample of 966 respondents via an online questionnaire. In the survey, risks are divided into four main categories: health, psychological, financial and travel destination. Nominal regression was used to identify the way in which risk perception affected travel intentions during COVID-19 and the research findings indicate that Central Asian tourists’ risk perception has done so. Hygiene, disinfection and a reliable health system in destinations (21%) will be leading factors in future travel. Kraje Azji Środkowej (Kazachstan, Kirgistan, Turkmenistan, Tadżykistan, Uzbekistan) uznawane są za jedne z najatrakcyjniejszych destynacji, ponieważ ze względu na swoje położenie geograficzne mają do zaoferowania wyjątkowe produkty turystyczne. Pandemia COVID-19 spowodowała jednak znaczące zmiany w działalności dobrze prosperującej branży turystycznej w regionie. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie wyników badań wpływu ryzyka na postawy turystów z Azji Środkowej wobec podróżowania w trakcie pandemii COVID-19, w odniesieniu do ich cech socjodemograficznych. Badanie przeprowadzono w okresie od stycznia do kwietnia 2021 r. na próbie 966 respondentów przy użyciu kwestionariusza internetowego. W ankiecie wyodrębniono cztery główne kategorie potencjalnych zagrożeń: ryzyko zdrowotne, psychologiczne, finansowe oraz związane z podróżą i destynacją turystyczną. Aby zidentyfikować, w jaki sposób postrzeganie ryzyka wpłynęło na zamiary związane z podróżowaniem podczas pandemii, zastosowano regresję nominalną. Uzyskane wyniki pokazują, że świadomość zagrożeń w czasie epidemii COVID-19 miała istotne znaczenie dla podejmowania decyzji przez turystów z Azji Środkowej. Higiena, dezynfekcja oraz budzący zaufanie system opieki zdrowotnej w miejscu docelowym (21%) będą stanowiły główne czynniki wyboru podczas przyszłych podróży.

Zhenzhen Yin, Jinqiang You, Youyou Wang, Jinlin Zhao, Shengpeng Jiang, Ximei Zhang, Peiguo Wang, Zhen Tao, Xin Wang, Zhiyong Yuan Department of Radiation Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China Purpose: To determine the efficacy and late toxicities of moderate (2.5–4 Gy) hypofractionated radiotherapy (H-RT) in localized prostate cancer, a meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials comparing moderate H-RT with conventional fractionated RT (C-RT) was performed.Materials and methods: Systematic search on published randomized clinical trials in English according to Cochrane review guidelines in databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, web of science, and Wiley Online Library was carried out. Outcomes of interests were biochemical and clinical disease failure (BCDF), biochemical failure (BF), overall survival (OS), and late toxicities.Results: Seven of the 365 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria with 8,156 participants. Compared with C-RT, moderate H-RT showed a lower BF rate (risk ratio [RR] =0.80, 95% CI: 0.68–0.95, P=0.009), while did not improve OS (RR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.78–1.02, P=0.10). There was no significant difference in BCDF rates between H-RT and C-RT (RR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.82–1.02, P=0.12). The H-RT was deeply grouped into dose-escalated H-RT (with a higher biologically effective dose [BED1.5] than C-RT) and no dose-escalated H-RT; dose-escalated H-RT significantly decreased BCDF rate compared with C-RT (RR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.73–0.96, P=0.01). Regarding late toxicities, there is no significant difference in late gastrointestinal (GI; RR =0.97, 95% CI: 0.71–1.33, P=0.85) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities (RR =1.04, 95% CI: 0.87–1.24, P=0.69). When subgrouped into dose-escalated H-RT (with a higher BED5 compared with C-RT) and no dose-escalated H-RT, dose-escalated H-RT increased GI toxicity (RR =1.62, 95% CI: 1.26–2.09, P=0.0002) and GU toxicity (RR =1.28, 95% CI: 1.05–1.55, P=0.01), while no dose-escalated H-RT significantly lowered GI toxicity (RR =0.81, 95% CI: 0.70–0.94, P=0.005) and placed no influence on GU toxicity (RR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.88–1.20, P=0.77).Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that moderate H-RT decreases BF rate, while does not improve OS. Compared with C-RT, H-RT with an increase in BED1.5 improved BCDF rates significantly, and accordingly, an increase in BED5 will result in elevated late GI and GU toxicities. Keywords: prostate neoplasm, hypofractionation, radiotherapy, randomized trial &nbsp