Can you repeat the question? Paradata as a lens to understand respondent experience answering cognitively demanding, sensitive questions
Survey researchers hope that respondents will provide high-quality data, but evidence suggests that social desirability bias may be commonplace. Social desirability can lead to significant underreporting or overreporting of sensitive behaviors. With better understanding of the cognitive processes th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-06, Vol.16 (6), p.e0252512-e0252512 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0252512 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | e0252512 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Bell, Suzanne O Bishai, David |
| description | Survey researchers hope that respondents will provide high-quality data, but evidence suggests that social desirability bias may be commonplace. Social desirability can lead to significant underreporting or overreporting of sensitive behaviors. With better understanding of the cognitive processes that respondents use to prepare and deliver their responses, survey designers could hope to minimize social desirability bias or at least detect settings that lessen its impact. The primary objective of this study was to use survey paradata to understand the psychology of responding to certain types of survey questions. More specifically, we sought to determine how emotional triggering can alter response latencies to cognitively demanding and sensitive survey questions on induced abortion, which is underreported. We hypothesize that having had a prior abortion might lengthen response times to an indirect question about abortion among respondents who have experienced this sensitive reproductive outcome as they hesitate in deciding whether and how to respond to the question. Data come from a representative survey of 6,035 reproductive age women in Rajasthan, India. We used list experiment question active screen time paradata in conjunction with responses from direct questions on abortion to assess our hypothesis. Our final model was a multivariate linear regression with random effects at the level of the interviewer, including adjustments for respondent, community, and interviewer characteristics to estimate within-respondent effects. Results suggest that women who reported an abortion on the direct abortion questions took 5.11 (95% CI 0.21, 10.00) seconds longer to respond to the list experiment treatment list compared to the control list in comparison to women who did not report an abortion on the direct abortion questions. This study demonstrates the additional insights gained when focusing on response latencies to cognitively demanding questions involved in the measurement of sensitive behaviors. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0252512 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2537996095</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A664425736</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ac8f0a5023524548ae6325ec02f6b0f3</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A664425736</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-1f3175c932ca245a750ab4728bd9a6a372f3420610320628702b5aa20d9d0203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk22L1DAQx4so3nn6DQQDgii4a5o0aftGORYfFg5O9PBtmE3TbpZusibpefsN_NjOPnhc5V5IIQ3T3_wn828my57ndJrzMn-38kNw0E833pkpZYKJnD3ITvOas4lklD-8sz_JnsS4olTwSsrH2QkvaF2WlJ1mv2fgyNYPJJiNgUTS0pCfg4nJeveBfIUADSQgEAmQ3rhIkieDa0yICVyDWRHrN8YlYm42JljjtCHg4i_cu45o3zmb7LXpt6Qxa0zB6FsSUWkfvq0Vn2aPWuijeXZ8n2VXnz5ezb5MLi4_z2fnFxMtZZ0mecvzUmhsTAMrBJSCwqIoWbVoapDAS9byglGZU44rq7DJhQBgtKkbik6cZS8OspveR3X0MComeFnXktYCifmBaDys1CbYNYSt8mDVPuBDpyAkq3ujQFctBUEZF3iWogIjORNGU9bKBW05ar0_VhsWa9No9ClAPxIdf3F2qTp_raq84nVVoMDro0Dwe6vU2kZt-h6c8cP-3DWjZcFzRF_-g97f3ZHqABuwrvVYV-9E1bmURcFEySVS03sofPAfWo0XrrUYHyW8GSUgk8xN6mCIUc2_f_t_9vLHmH11h10a6NMy-n7YX5kxWBxAHXyMwbS3JudU7eblrxtqNy_qOC_8D4T_BzY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2537996095</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can you repeat the question? Paradata as a lens to understand respondent experience answering cognitively demanding, sensitive questions</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Bell, Suzanne O ; Bishai, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Bell, Suzanne O ; Bishai, David</creatorcontrib><description>Survey researchers hope that respondents will provide high-quality data, but evidence suggests that social desirability bias may be commonplace. Social desirability can lead to significant underreporting or overreporting of sensitive behaviors. With better understanding of the cognitive processes that respondents use to prepare and deliver their responses, survey designers could hope to minimize social desirability bias or at least detect settings that lessen its impact. The primary objective of this study was to use survey paradata to understand the psychology of responding to certain types of survey questions. More specifically, we sought to determine how emotional triggering can alter response latencies to cognitively demanding and sensitive survey questions on induced abortion, which is underreported. We hypothesize that having had a prior abortion might lengthen response times to an indirect question about abortion among respondents who have experienced this sensitive reproductive outcome as they hesitate in deciding whether and how to respond to the question. Data come from a representative survey of 6,035 reproductive age women in Rajasthan, India. We used list experiment question active screen time paradata in conjunction with responses from direct questions on abortion to assess our hypothesis. Our final model was a multivariate linear regression with random effects at the level of the interviewer, including adjustments for respondent, community, and interviewer characteristics to estimate within-respondent effects. Results suggest that women who reported an abortion on the direct abortion questions took 5.11 (95% CI 0.21, 10.00) seconds longer to respond to the list experiment treatment list compared to the control list in comparison to women who did not report an abortion on the direct abortion questions. This study demonstrates the additional insights gained when focusing on response latencies to cognitively demanding questions involved in the measurement of sensitive behaviors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252512</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34097702</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Behavior ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cognition & reasoning ; Data collection ; Data entry ; Datasets ; Decision analysis ; Designers ; Evaluation ; Experiments ; Hypotheses ; Polls & surveys ; Pressure effects ; Public health ; Questions ; Reproductive health ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Screen time ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-06, Vol.16 (6), p.e0252512-e0252512</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Bell, Bishai. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Bell, Bishai 2021 Bell, Bishai</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-1f3175c932ca245a750ab4728bd9a6a372f3420610320628702b5aa20d9d0203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-1f3175c932ca245a750ab4728bd9a6a372f3420610320628702b5aa20d9d0203</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7650-5940</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8183984/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8183984/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bell, Suzanne O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishai, David</creatorcontrib><title>Can you repeat the question? Paradata as a lens to understand respondent experience answering cognitively demanding, sensitive questions</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Survey researchers hope that respondents will provide high-quality data, but evidence suggests that social desirability bias may be commonplace. Social desirability can lead to significant underreporting or overreporting of sensitive behaviors. With better understanding of the cognitive processes that respondents use to prepare and deliver their responses, survey designers could hope to minimize social desirability bias or at least detect settings that lessen its impact. The primary objective of this study was to use survey paradata to understand the psychology of responding to certain types of survey questions. More specifically, we sought to determine how emotional triggering can alter response latencies to cognitively demanding and sensitive survey questions on induced abortion, which is underreported. We hypothesize that having had a prior abortion might lengthen response times to an indirect question about abortion among respondents who have experienced this sensitive reproductive outcome as they hesitate in deciding whether and how to respond to the question. Data come from a representative survey of 6,035 reproductive age women in Rajasthan, India. We used list experiment question active screen time paradata in conjunction with responses from direct questions on abortion to assess our hypothesis. Our final model was a multivariate linear regression with random effects at the level of the interviewer, including adjustments for respondent, community, and interviewer characteristics to estimate within-respondent effects. Results suggest that women who reported an abortion on the direct abortion questions took 5.11 (95% CI 0.21, 10.00) seconds longer to respond to the list experiment treatment list compared to the control list in comparison to women who did not report an abortion on the direct abortion questions. This study demonstrates the additional insights gained when focusing on response latencies to cognitively demanding questions involved in the measurement of sensitive behaviors.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data entry</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Designers</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Pressure effects</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Reproductive health</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Screen time</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk22L1DAQx4so3nn6DQQDgii4a5o0aftGORYfFg5O9PBtmE3TbpZusibpefsN_NjOPnhc5V5IIQ3T3_wn828my57ndJrzMn-38kNw0E833pkpZYKJnD3ITvOas4lklD-8sz_JnsS4olTwSsrH2QkvaF2WlJ1mv2fgyNYPJJiNgUTS0pCfg4nJeveBfIUADSQgEAmQ3rhIkieDa0yICVyDWRHrN8YlYm42JljjtCHg4i_cu45o3zmb7LXpt6Qxa0zB6FsSUWkfvq0Vn2aPWuijeXZ8n2VXnz5ezb5MLi4_z2fnFxMtZZ0mecvzUmhsTAMrBJSCwqIoWbVoapDAS9byglGZU44rq7DJhQBgtKkbik6cZS8OspveR3X0MComeFnXktYCifmBaDys1CbYNYSt8mDVPuBDpyAkq3ujQFctBUEZF3iWogIjORNGU9bKBW05ar0_VhsWa9No9ClAPxIdf3F2qTp_raq84nVVoMDro0Dwe6vU2kZt-h6c8cP-3DWjZcFzRF_-g97f3ZHqABuwrvVYV-9E1bmURcFEySVS03sofPAfWo0XrrUYHyW8GSUgk8xN6mCIUc2_f_t_9vLHmH11h10a6NMy-n7YX5kxWBxAHXyMwbS3JudU7eblrxtqNy_qOC_8D4T_BzY</recordid><startdate>20210607</startdate><enddate>20210607</enddate><creator>Bell, Suzanne O</creator><creator>Bishai, David</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7650-5940</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210607</creationdate><title>Can you repeat the question? Paradata as a lens to understand respondent experience answering cognitively demanding, sensitive questions</title><author>Bell, Suzanne O ; Bishai, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-1f3175c932ca245a750ab4728bd9a6a372f3420610320628702b5aa20d9d0203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data entry</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Designers</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Pressure effects</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Reproductive health</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Screen time</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bell, Suzanne O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishai, David</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bell, Suzanne O</au><au>Bishai, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can you repeat the question? Paradata as a lens to understand respondent experience answering cognitively demanding, sensitive questions</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2021-06-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0252512</spage><epage>e0252512</epage><pages>e0252512-e0252512</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Survey researchers hope that respondents will provide high-quality data, but evidence suggests that social desirability bias may be commonplace. Social desirability can lead to significant underreporting or overreporting of sensitive behaviors. With better understanding of the cognitive processes that respondents use to prepare and deliver their responses, survey designers could hope to minimize social desirability bias or at least detect settings that lessen its impact. The primary objective of this study was to use survey paradata to understand the psychology of responding to certain types of survey questions. More specifically, we sought to determine how emotional triggering can alter response latencies to cognitively demanding and sensitive survey questions on induced abortion, which is underreported. We hypothesize that having had a prior abortion might lengthen response times to an indirect question about abortion among respondents who have experienced this sensitive reproductive outcome as they hesitate in deciding whether and how to respond to the question. Data come from a representative survey of 6,035 reproductive age women in Rajasthan, India. We used list experiment question active screen time paradata in conjunction with responses from direct questions on abortion to assess our hypothesis. Our final model was a multivariate linear regression with random effects at the level of the interviewer, including adjustments for respondent, community, and interviewer characteristics to estimate within-respondent effects. Results suggest that women who reported an abortion on the direct abortion questions took 5.11 (95% CI 0.21, 10.00) seconds longer to respond to the list experiment treatment list compared to the control list in comparison to women who did not report an abortion on the direct abortion questions. This study demonstrates the additional insights gained when focusing on response latencies to cognitively demanding questions involved in the measurement of sensitive behaviors.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34097702</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0252512</doi><tpages>e0252512</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7650-5940</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-06, Vol.16 (6), p.e0252512-e0252512 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2537996095 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Abortion Behavior Bias Biology and Life Sciences Cognition & reasoning Data collection Data entry Datasets Decision analysis Designers Evaluation Experiments Hypotheses Polls & surveys Pressure effects Public health Questions Reproductive health Research and Analysis Methods Screen time Social Sciences |
| title | Can you repeat the question? Paradata as a lens to understand respondent experience answering cognitively demanding, sensitive questions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T00%3A43%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20you%20repeat%20the%20question?%20Paradata%20as%20a%20lens%20to%20understand%20respondent%20experience%20answering%20cognitively%20demanding,%20sensitive%20questions&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Bell,%20Suzanne%20O&rft.date=2021-06-07&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0252512&rft.epage=e0252512&rft.pages=e0252512-e0252512&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0252512&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA664425736%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2537996095&rft_id=info:pmid/34097702&rft_galeid=A664425736&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ac8f0a5023524548ae6325ec02f6b0f3&rfr_iscdi=true |