One-way pendulum?: Staff retention in the NHS: determining the relative salience of recognised drivers of early exit

PurposeStaff shortage in the UK National Health Service has a long history, but is widely predicted to become acute over the next decade. Falling enrolment rates in health professional training and restrictions to migrant labour recruitment have brought the, traditionally neglected, issue of staff r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of workplace health management 2020-02, Vol.13 (1), p.45-60
Hauptverfasser: Weyman, Andrew K., Roy, Deborah, Nolan, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 60
container_issue 1
container_start_page 45
container_title International journal of workplace health management
container_volume 13
creator Weyman, Andrew K.
Roy, Deborah
Nolan, Peter
description PurposeStaff shortage in the UK National Health Service has a long history, but is widely predicted to become acute over the next decade. Falling enrolment rates in health professional training and restrictions to migrant labour recruitment have brought the, traditionally neglected, issue of staff retention into sharp relief. The purpose of this paper is to represent the first large scale systematic appraisal of the relative salience of recognised headline drivers of employee exodus from the NHS.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected from an opportunity sample of 1,594 health professionals, managers and administrators employed by the NHS. Participants completed a paired ranking task (Case V method of paired comparisons, Thurston, 1927) to determine the relative importance of eight widely cited reasons for exit. The item set was derived from focus groups conducted as a component of the wider study.FindingsFindings revealed almost universal consensus regarding the primacy of shortage of resources, job demands and time pressure. Pay was ranked lower than predicted. Flexible working arrangements do not presented as a key solution, and there is no support for claims of generational differences.Research limitations/implicationsSurvivor population effects could constitute a source of sample bias, i.e. all participants were current NHS employees. It is possible that those who remain may be more resilient or hold different dispositions to leavers. Thus, comparisons by age and grade may not be comparing like with like. Tapping respondent beliefs about the actions of peers can embody some degree of inaccuracy and attribution bias. However, effects can be considered to operate as a source of common, rather than systematic, error across the demographics compared. The medical and dental sample was too small to give confidence in detected differences.Practical implicationsFindings challenge the claim that wider availability of flexible working hours will significantly reduce exit rates. Pay, being a source of dissatisfaction, does not constitute a key push variable in itself, rather its salience reflects the effort reward-imbalance produced by rises in job demands.Social implicationsStaff shortages in the NHS represent a threat to: public well-being – waiting lists and demand for care; the well-being of who continue to work in the NHS – job demands and resources; the employment prospects of staff who leave involuntarily, e.g. on grounds of incapacity and thre
doi_str_mv 10.1108/IJWHM-06-2019-0084
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2533963692</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2533963692</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-8cafe22f2137a5abc4f3439d21b2bb41ea5c0b1293619a5a32d8f433e5cb74843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j0FLAzEUhIMoWKsHr54Ez9G897LZzUmkWFup9KLoLSTZBCztdk26SP-9u1Y8zRw-ZvgYuwJxCyCqu_nz--yFC8VRgOZCVPKIjaAsiFekPo7_ewGn7CznlRBKS6ARu1w2gX_b_XUbmrpbd5v7c3YS7TqHi78cs7fp4-tkxhfLp_nkYcE9otrxytsYECMClbawzstIknSN4NA5CcEWXjhATQp0DxDWVZREofCulJWkMbs57LZp-9WFvDOrbZea_tJgQaQVKY09hQfKp23OKUTTps-NTXsDwgzq5lfdCGUGdTOo0w-kXkn6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2533963692</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>One-way pendulum?: Staff retention in the NHS: determining the relative salience of recognised drivers of early exit</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Emerald Journals</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Weyman, Andrew K. ; Roy, Deborah ; Nolan, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Weyman, Andrew K. ; Roy, Deborah ; Nolan, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>PurposeStaff shortage in the UK National Health Service has a long history, but is widely predicted to become acute over the next decade. Falling enrolment rates in health professional training and restrictions to migrant labour recruitment have brought the, traditionally neglected, issue of staff retention into sharp relief. The purpose of this paper is to represent the first large scale systematic appraisal of the relative salience of recognised headline drivers of employee exodus from the NHS.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected from an opportunity sample of 1,594 health professionals, managers and administrators employed by the NHS. Participants completed a paired ranking task (Case V method of paired comparisons, Thurston, 1927) to determine the relative importance of eight widely cited reasons for exit. The item set was derived from focus groups conducted as a component of the wider study.FindingsFindings revealed almost universal consensus regarding the primacy of shortage of resources, job demands and time pressure. Pay was ranked lower than predicted. Flexible working arrangements do not presented as a key solution, and there is no support for claims of generational differences.Research limitations/implicationsSurvivor population effects could constitute a source of sample bias, i.e. all participants were current NHS employees. It is possible that those who remain may be more resilient or hold different dispositions to leavers. Thus, comparisons by age and grade may not be comparing like with like. Tapping respondent beliefs about the actions of peers can embody some degree of inaccuracy and attribution bias. However, effects can be considered to operate as a source of common, rather than systematic, error across the demographics compared. The medical and dental sample was too small to give confidence in detected differences.Practical implicationsFindings challenge the claim that wider availability of flexible working hours will significantly reduce exit rates. Pay, being a source of dissatisfaction, does not constitute a key push variable in itself, rather its salience reflects the effort reward-imbalance produced by rises in job demands.Social implicationsStaff shortages in the NHS represent a threat to: public well-being – waiting lists and demand for care; the well-being of who continue to work in the NHS – job demands and resources; the employment prospects of staff who leave involuntarily, e.g. on grounds of incapacity and threats to health and well-being – extending to impacts on their dependents.Originality/valueIssues of staff retention within the NHS are topical and under researched. The findings provide an up to date picture of the relative influence of headline drivers of early exit from the NHS. The study draws upon a more diverse and comprehensive sample of NHS employees that any other known previous studies of early exit. Findings are of potential international relevance to other State health systems. The authors believe this to be the largest (sample) known application of the method of paired comparisons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1753-8351</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1753-836X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/IJWHM-06-2019-0084</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Attribution ; Bias ; Bureaucracy ; Demographics ; Demography ; Dependents ; Employee retention ; Employee turnover ; Employees ; Employers ; Employment ; Flexible hours ; Flexible working ; Generational differences ; Health problems ; Health risks ; Health services ; Imbalance ; Job characteristics ; Job satisfaction ; Labor shortages ; Medical personnel ; Migrant workers ; Occupational stress ; Primacy ; Professional training ; Professions ; Prospects ; Recruitment ; Reinforcement ; Retention ; Salience ; Shortages ; Threats ; Training ; Waiting lists ; Well being ; Work life balance ; Workforce planning ; Working hours ; Workloads</subject><ispartof>International journal of workplace health management, 2020-02, Vol.13 (1), p.45-60</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-8cafe22f2137a5abc4f3439d21b2bb41ea5c0b1293619a5a32d8f433e5cb74843</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,967,12846,21695,27924,27925,30999</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weyman, Andrew K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roy, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nolan, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>One-way pendulum?: Staff retention in the NHS: determining the relative salience of recognised drivers of early exit</title><title>International journal of workplace health management</title><description>PurposeStaff shortage in the UK National Health Service has a long history, but is widely predicted to become acute over the next decade. Falling enrolment rates in health professional training and restrictions to migrant labour recruitment have brought the, traditionally neglected, issue of staff retention into sharp relief. The purpose of this paper is to represent the first large scale systematic appraisal of the relative salience of recognised headline drivers of employee exodus from the NHS.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected from an opportunity sample of 1,594 health professionals, managers and administrators employed by the NHS. Participants completed a paired ranking task (Case V method of paired comparisons, Thurston, 1927) to determine the relative importance of eight widely cited reasons for exit. The item set was derived from focus groups conducted as a component of the wider study.FindingsFindings revealed almost universal consensus regarding the primacy of shortage of resources, job demands and time pressure. Pay was ranked lower than predicted. Flexible working arrangements do not presented as a key solution, and there is no support for claims of generational differences.Research limitations/implicationsSurvivor population effects could constitute a source of sample bias, i.e. all participants were current NHS employees. It is possible that those who remain may be more resilient or hold different dispositions to leavers. Thus, comparisons by age and grade may not be comparing like with like. Tapping respondent beliefs about the actions of peers can embody some degree of inaccuracy and attribution bias. However, effects can be considered to operate as a source of common, rather than systematic, error across the demographics compared. The medical and dental sample was too small to give confidence in detected differences.Practical implicationsFindings challenge the claim that wider availability of flexible working hours will significantly reduce exit rates. Pay, being a source of dissatisfaction, does not constitute a key push variable in itself, rather its salience reflects the effort reward-imbalance produced by rises in job demands.Social implicationsStaff shortages in the NHS represent a threat to: public well-being – waiting lists and demand for care; the well-being of who continue to work in the NHS – job demands and resources; the employment prospects of staff who leave involuntarily, e.g. on grounds of incapacity and threats to health and well-being – extending to impacts on their dependents.Originality/valueIssues of staff retention within the NHS are topical and under researched. The findings provide an up to date picture of the relative influence of headline drivers of early exit from the NHS. The study draws upon a more diverse and comprehensive sample of NHS employees that any other known previous studies of early exit. Findings are of potential international relevance to other State health systems. The authors believe this to be the largest (sample) known application of the method of paired comparisons.</description><subject>Attribution</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bureaucracy</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Dependents</subject><subject>Employee retention</subject><subject>Employee turnover</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employers</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Flexible hours</subject><subject>Flexible working</subject><subject>Generational differences</subject><subject>Health problems</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Imbalance</subject><subject>Job characteristics</subject><subject>Job satisfaction</subject><subject>Labor shortages</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Migrant workers</subject><subject>Occupational stress</subject><subject>Primacy</subject><subject>Professional training</subject><subject>Professions</subject><subject>Prospects</subject><subject>Recruitment</subject><subject>Reinforcement</subject><subject>Retention</subject><subject>Salience</subject><subject>Shortages</subject><subject>Threats</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Waiting lists</subject><subject>Well being</subject><subject>Work life balance</subject><subject>Workforce planning</subject><subject>Working hours</subject><subject>Workloads</subject><issn>1753-8351</issn><issn>1753-836X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNo9j0FLAzEUhIMoWKsHr54Ez9G897LZzUmkWFup9KLoLSTZBCztdk26SP-9u1Y8zRw-ZvgYuwJxCyCqu_nz--yFC8VRgOZCVPKIjaAsiFekPo7_ewGn7CznlRBKS6ARu1w2gX_b_XUbmrpbd5v7c3YS7TqHi78cs7fp4-tkxhfLp_nkYcE9otrxytsYECMClbawzstIknSN4NA5CcEWXjhATQp0DxDWVZREofCulJWkMbs57LZp-9WFvDOrbZea_tJgQaQVKY09hQfKp23OKUTTps-NTXsDwgzq5lfdCGUGdTOo0w-kXkn6</recordid><startdate>20200203</startdate><enddate>20200203</enddate><creator>Weyman, Andrew K.</creator><creator>Roy, Deborah</creator><creator>Nolan, Peter</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200203</creationdate><title>One-way pendulum?</title><author>Weyman, Andrew K. ; Roy, Deborah ; Nolan, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c226t-8cafe22f2137a5abc4f3439d21b2bb41ea5c0b1293619a5a32d8f433e5cb74843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Attribution</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bureaucracy</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Dependents</topic><topic>Employee retention</topic><topic>Employee turnover</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employers</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Flexible hours</topic><topic>Flexible working</topic><topic>Generational differences</topic><topic>Health problems</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Imbalance</topic><topic>Job characteristics</topic><topic>Job satisfaction</topic><topic>Labor shortages</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Migrant workers</topic><topic>Occupational stress</topic><topic>Primacy</topic><topic>Professional training</topic><topic>Professions</topic><topic>Prospects</topic><topic>Recruitment</topic><topic>Reinforcement</topic><topic>Retention</topic><topic>Salience</topic><topic>Shortages</topic><topic>Threats</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Waiting lists</topic><topic>Well being</topic><topic>Work life balance</topic><topic>Workforce planning</topic><topic>Working hours</topic><topic>Workloads</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weyman, Andrew K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roy, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nolan, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology 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 &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</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 Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of workplace health management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weyman, Andrew K.</au><au>Roy, Deborah</au><au>Nolan, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>One-way pendulum?: Staff retention in the NHS: determining the relative salience of recognised drivers of early exit</atitle><jtitle>International journal of workplace health management</jtitle><date>2020-02-03</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>60</epage><pages>45-60</pages><issn>1753-8351</issn><eissn>1753-836X</eissn><abstract>PurposeStaff shortage in the UK National Health Service has a long history, but is widely predicted to become acute over the next decade. Falling enrolment rates in health professional training and restrictions to migrant labour recruitment have brought the, traditionally neglected, issue of staff retention into sharp relief. The purpose of this paper is to represent the first large scale systematic appraisal of the relative salience of recognised headline drivers of employee exodus from the NHS.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected from an opportunity sample of 1,594 health professionals, managers and administrators employed by the NHS. Participants completed a paired ranking task (Case V method of paired comparisons, Thurston, 1927) to determine the relative importance of eight widely cited reasons for exit. The item set was derived from focus groups conducted as a component of the wider study.FindingsFindings revealed almost universal consensus regarding the primacy of shortage of resources, job demands and time pressure. Pay was ranked lower than predicted. Flexible working arrangements do not presented as a key solution, and there is no support for claims of generational differences.Research limitations/implicationsSurvivor population effects could constitute a source of sample bias, i.e. all participants were current NHS employees. It is possible that those who remain may be more resilient or hold different dispositions to leavers. Thus, comparisons by age and grade may not be comparing like with like. Tapping respondent beliefs about the actions of peers can embody some degree of inaccuracy and attribution bias. However, effects can be considered to operate as a source of common, rather than systematic, error across the demographics compared. The medical and dental sample was too small to give confidence in detected differences.Practical implicationsFindings challenge the claim that wider availability of flexible working hours will significantly reduce exit rates. Pay, being a source of dissatisfaction, does not constitute a key push variable in itself, rather its salience reflects the effort reward-imbalance produced by rises in job demands.Social implicationsStaff shortages in the NHS represent a threat to: public well-being – waiting lists and demand for care; the well-being of who continue to work in the NHS – job demands and resources; the employment prospects of staff who leave involuntarily, e.g. on grounds of incapacity and threats to health and well-being – extending to impacts on their dependents.Originality/valueIssues of staff retention within the NHS are topical and under researched. The findings provide an up to date picture of the relative influence of headline drivers of early exit from the NHS. The study draws upon a more diverse and comprehensive sample of NHS employees that any other known previous studies of early exit. Findings are of potential international relevance to other State health systems. The authors believe this to be the largest (sample) known application of the method of paired comparisons.</abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/IJWHM-06-2019-0084</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1753-8351
ispartof International journal of workplace health management, 2020-02, Vol.13 (1), p.45-60
issn 1753-8351
1753-836X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2533963692
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Emerald Journals; Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection
subjects Attribution
Bias
Bureaucracy
Demographics
Demography
Dependents
Employee retention
Employee turnover
Employees
Employers
Employment
Flexible hours
Flexible working
Generational differences
Health problems
Health risks
Health services
Imbalance
Job characteristics
Job satisfaction
Labor shortages
Medical personnel
Migrant workers
Occupational stress
Primacy
Professional training
Professions
Prospects
Recruitment
Reinforcement
Retention
Salience
Shortages
Threats
Training
Waiting lists
Well being
Work life balance
Workforce planning
Working hours
Workloads
title One-way pendulum?: Staff retention in the NHS: determining the relative salience of recognised drivers of early exit
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T07%3A50%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=One-way%20pendulum?:%20Staff%20retention%20in%20the%20NHS:%20determining%20the%20relative%20salience%20of%20recognised%20drivers%20of%20early%20exit&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20workplace%20health%20management&rft.au=Weyman,%20Andrew%20K.&rft.date=2020-02-03&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=60&rft.pages=45-60&rft.issn=1753-8351&rft.eissn=1753-836X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/IJWHM-06-2019-0084&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2533963692%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2533963692&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true