Table 2 Characteristics of Australian television coverage of medical tourism, May 2005 – June 2011 (n = 66)*

India – 26

Cosmetic surgery – 20

Patient – 69 (F: 58; Au: 63)

Access to services (except for reasons of cost) – 62.1

Use of personal testimonials – 50.0

Ethical dilemmas – 53.0

Malaysia – 12

Stem-cell therapy – 15

Low cost – 36.4

Reference to number of international patients – 42.4

Uncertainty as to what is on offer – 50.0

Thailand – 10

Reproductive therapies – 13

Expert – 68 (Au: 36)

Ability to ‘feel good’ – 21.2

Logo/branding symbol −19.7

Complications – 34.8

The Philippines – 6

Transplant surgery – 9

Medical tourism facilitator/representative of overseas hospital – 26 (Au: 2)

Access to ‘medical breakthrough’ – 21.2

Mention of international accreditation – 12.1

Procedural risk – 22.7

China – 5

Reconstructive surgery – 4

Family member/carer – 22 (F: 6)

Travel opportunity −16.7

Surgeon/practitioner biography or education – 10.6

Post-operative care – 12.1

Pakistan and Russia – 2 each

Orthopaedic surgery – 3

Kidney donor – 13 (F: 3)

High-quality services – 13.6

Ease of contacting practitioner post-procedure – 6.0

Lack of legal recourse – 10.6

‘Asia’ in general – 2

Novel, drug-resistant infection – 2

Surrogacy client – 10 (F: 5; Au: 8)

No waiting time – 13.6

Exposure to novel risks – 9.1

No country named – 3

Other – 3

Other – 7 (Au: 5)

State-of-the-art facilities – 12.1

Difficulty in contacting practitioner post-procedure – 4.5

‘Vox pop’/audience member – 6 (Au: 6)

Surgeon/practitioner expertise – 10.6

Government spokesperson or official – 4 (Au: 0)

Personalised service – 10.6

Politician – 4 (Au: 2)

Access to latest technology – 4.5

Surrogate mother – 3 (Au: 1)

Greater convenience – 1.5