Travelers’ perceptions of jetlag and travel fatigue: A scoping review

ABSTRACT

Effective management strategies for jetlag have largely been studied and evaluated through the lens of circadian science and biological rhythms. Jetlag is mostly self-managed by the individual. The most effective strategies require individuals to make behavioral changes to carefully alter sleep-wake schedules and time light exposure. However, travelers’ perceptions, including their experiences, beliefs about jetlag/travel fatigue, and management expectations remain unclear. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to systematically synthesize the literature to understand what is currently known about travelers’ perceptions of jetlag and travel fatigue. A literature search was conducted through EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus generating 1164 results (2 articles known to authors), which were screened against our inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies including data from 3952 participants were evaluated for its study design and traveler-centered outcome measures across the domains of: 1) Traveler Health Beliefs and Knowledge about Jetlag and Travel Fatigue; 2) Experience of Jetlag and Travel Fatigue 3) Traveler Priorities; 4) Self-reported Management Strategies for Jetlag and Travel Fatigue; and 5) User Experiences of Management Strategies. Synthesis of results suggests a potential mismatch between researchers’ focus on circadian misalignment and travelers’ focus on air travel comfort. A better understanding of the beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, satisfaction, experiences, and expectations about jetlag and travel fatigue will better enable the development of interventions that align with traveler priorities.

KEYWORDS:

• Jetlag
• travel fatigue
• traveler perspectives
• circadian rhythm
• scoping review

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Other stakeholder groups: aircraft constructor and engineers (n = 9), Government departments and authorities (n = 11), holiday/flight companies (n = 6), insurance companies n = 1, NGOs (n = 4), Occupational health (n = 3), independent researchers and consultants (n = 12)

2. Age is reported as a categorical outcome

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for publication of this article.