Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented
Rationale, aims and objectives Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.62-70 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 70 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 62 |
container_title | Journal of evaluation in clinical practice |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Andreano, Anita Anghinoni, Emanuela Autelitano, Mariangela Bellini, Aldo Bersani, Maurizio Bizzoco, Sabrina Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca Decarli, Adriano Lucchi, Silvia Mannino, Salvatore Panciroli, Emerico Rebora, Paola Rognoni, Magda Sampietro, Giuseppe Villa, Marco Zocchetti, Carlo Zucchi, Alberto Valsecchi, Maria Grazia Russo, Antonio Giampiero |
description | Rationale, aims and objectives
Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level.
Method
The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected.
Results
For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines.
Conclusion
It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jep.12436 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826624972</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2308358381</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURiMEoqWw4AWQJTawSOufxEnYodJOiypgUVR21rV9XTwkcbCTlnkDHhsP03aBhDfXts53dKWvKF4yesjyOVrjdMh4JeSjYp8JWZe8qcXj7b2WJeNdtVc8S2lNKRO0bp4We1zyjrKG7xe_z0frDcwhJqIhoSVhJBGvfZoxf8FoCdjBj_kdYfY3SCzMQFyIREeENBMDo8H4jsSwzH5EgjfQLxnNnuCyzYQ-XHuTuYhkgvn7LWy2IaKR-GHqccBxRvu8eOKgT_jibh4UX09PLo_PyovPq_Pj9xelER2TpdZdYw3wjjNmKAOnJWqu6wooN6h11ba6cZ3tWs4cbUA4JlytnTTMSodGHBRvdt4php8LplkNPhnsexgxLEmxlkvJq67hGX39D7oOSxzzdooL2oq6FS3L1NsdZWJIKaJTU_QDxI1iVG3rUbke9beezL66My56QPtA3veRgaMdcOt73PzfpD6efLlXlrvEtrFfDwmIP5RsRFOrq08rJT6Is8vTbyt1Jf4AHeerOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2308358381</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Andreano, Anita ; Anghinoni, Emanuela ; Autelitano, Mariangela ; Bellini, Aldo ; Bersani, Maurizio ; Bizzoco, Sabrina ; Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca ; Decarli, Adriano ; Lucchi, Silvia ; Mannino, Salvatore ; Panciroli, Emerico ; Rebora, Paola ; Rognoni, Magda ; Sampietro, Giuseppe ; Villa, Marco ; Zocchetti, Carlo ; Zucchi, Alberto ; Valsecchi, Maria Grazia ; Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creator><creatorcontrib>Andreano, Anita ; Anghinoni, Emanuela ; Autelitano, Mariangela ; Bellini, Aldo ; Bersani, Maurizio ; Bizzoco, Sabrina ; Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca ; Decarli, Adriano ; Lucchi, Silvia ; Mannino, Salvatore ; Panciroli, Emerico ; Rebora, Paola ; Rognoni, Magda ; Sampietro, Giuseppe ; Villa, Marco ; Zocchetti, Carlo ; Zucchi, Alberto ; Valsecchi, Maria Grazia ; Russo, Antonio Giampiero ; OSSERVA Working Group ; OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><description>Rationale, aims and objectives
Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level.
Method
The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected.
Results
For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines.
Conclusion
It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1356-1294</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2753</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jep.12436</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26290172</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>access ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; and evaluation ; Breast cancer ; breast neoplasms ; Breast Neoplasms - therapy ; clinical pathways ; Cohort Studies ; Critical Pathways ; Female ; Guideline Adherence ; health care ; health care evaluation mechanisms ; health care quality ; Humans ; Italy ; Middle Aged ; Oncology Nursing ; Quality control ; quality indicators ; Quality Indicators, Health Care ; Registries</subject><ispartof>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.62-70</ispartof><rights>2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjep.12436$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjep.12436$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26290172$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Andreano, Anita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anghinoni, Emanuela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Autelitano, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellini, Aldo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bersani, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzoco, Sabrina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Decarli, Adriano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lucchi, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannino, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panciroli, Emerico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebora, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rognoni, Magda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampietro, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villa, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zocchetti, Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zucchi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><title>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</title><title>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice</title><addtitle>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</addtitle><description>Rationale, aims and objectives
Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level.
Method
The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected.
Results
For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines.
Conclusion
It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.</description><subject>access</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>and evaluation</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>breast neoplasms</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>clinical pathways</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Critical Pathways</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence</subject><subject>health care</subject><subject>health care evaluation mechanisms</subject><subject>health care quality</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Italy</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oncology Nursing</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>quality indicators</subject><subject>Quality Indicators, Health Care</subject><subject>Registries</subject><issn>1356-1294</issn><issn>1365-2753</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURiMEoqWw4AWQJTawSOufxEnYodJOiypgUVR21rV9XTwkcbCTlnkDHhsP03aBhDfXts53dKWvKF4yesjyOVrjdMh4JeSjYp8JWZe8qcXj7b2WJeNdtVc8S2lNKRO0bp4We1zyjrKG7xe_z0frDcwhJqIhoSVhJBGvfZoxf8FoCdjBj_kdYfY3SCzMQFyIREeENBMDo8H4jsSwzH5EgjfQLxnNnuCyzYQ-XHuTuYhkgvn7LWy2IaKR-GHqccBxRvu8eOKgT_jibh4UX09PLo_PyovPq_Pj9xelER2TpdZdYw3wjjNmKAOnJWqu6wooN6h11ba6cZ3tWs4cbUA4JlytnTTMSodGHBRvdt4php8LplkNPhnsexgxLEmxlkvJq67hGX39D7oOSxzzdooL2oq6FS3L1NsdZWJIKaJTU_QDxI1iVG3rUbke9beezL66My56QPtA3veRgaMdcOt73PzfpD6efLlXlrvEtrFfDwmIP5RsRFOrq08rJT6Is8vTbyt1Jf4AHeerOQ</recordid><startdate>201602</startdate><enddate>201602</enddate><creator>Andreano, Anita</creator><creator>Anghinoni, Emanuela</creator><creator>Autelitano, Mariangela</creator><creator>Bellini, Aldo</creator><creator>Bersani, Maurizio</creator><creator>Bizzoco, Sabrina</creator><creator>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</creator><creator>Decarli, Adriano</creator><creator>Lucchi, Silvia</creator><creator>Mannino, Salvatore</creator><creator>Panciroli, Emerico</creator><creator>Rebora, Paola</creator><creator>Rognoni, Magda</creator><creator>Sampietro, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Villa, Marco</creator><creator>Zocchetti, Carlo</creator><creator>Zucchi, Alberto</creator><creator>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</creator><creator>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201602</creationdate><title>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</title><author>Andreano, Anita ; Anghinoni, Emanuela ; Autelitano, Mariangela ; Bellini, Aldo ; Bersani, Maurizio ; Bizzoco, Sabrina ; Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca ; Decarli, Adriano ; Lucchi, Silvia ; Mannino, Salvatore ; Panciroli, Emerico ; Rebora, Paola ; Rognoni, Magda ; Sampietro, Giuseppe ; Villa, Marco ; Zocchetti, Carlo ; Zucchi, Alberto ; Valsecchi, Maria Grazia ; Russo, Antonio Giampiero</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3916-bb97dca29211c01afb6eb2b54a02cebb488b7f9d9821f07a3f13f5bf6c1d6fec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>access</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>and evaluation</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>breast neoplasms</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>clinical pathways</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Critical Pathways</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence</topic><topic>health care</topic><topic>health care evaluation mechanisms</topic><topic>health care quality</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Italy</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oncology Nursing</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>quality indicators</topic><topic>Quality Indicators, Health Care</topic><topic>Registries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Andreano, Anita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anghinoni, Emanuela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Autelitano, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bellini, Aldo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bersani, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzoco, Sabrina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Decarli, Adriano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lucchi, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mannino, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panciroli, Emerico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebora, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rognoni, Magda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampietro, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villa, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zocchetti, Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zucchi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OSSERVA Working Group</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Andreano, Anita</au><au>Anghinoni, Emanuela</au><au>Autelitano, Mariangela</au><au>Bellini, Aldo</au><au>Bersani, Maurizio</au><au>Bizzoco, Sabrina</au><au>Cavalieri d'Oro, Luca</au><au>Decarli, Adriano</au><au>Lucchi, Silvia</au><au>Mannino, Salvatore</au><au>Panciroli, Emerico</au><au>Rebora, Paola</au><au>Rognoni, Magda</au><au>Sampietro, Giuseppe</au><au>Villa, Marco</au><au>Zocchetti, Carlo</au><au>Zucchi, Alberto</au><au>Valsecchi, Maria Grazia</au><au>Russo, Antonio Giampiero</au><aucorp>OSSERVA Working Group</aucorp><aucorp>OSSERVA Working Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented</atitle><jtitle>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice</jtitle><addtitle>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</addtitle><date>2016-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>62</spage><epage>70</epage><pages>62-70</pages><issn>1356-1294</issn><eissn>1365-2753</eissn><abstract>Rationale, aims and objectives
Assuring the best standards of care – in a sustainable way – in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level.
Method
The cohort of 2007–2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub‐cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected.
Results
For a few indicators, such as cyto‐histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow‐up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re‐intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high‐volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines.
Conclusion
It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26290172</pmid><doi>10.1111/jep.12436</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1356-1294 |
ispartof | Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.62-70 |
issn | 1356-1294 1365-2753 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826624972 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | access Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over and evaluation Breast cancer breast neoplasms Breast Neoplasms - therapy clinical pathways Cohort Studies Critical Pathways Female Guideline Adherence health care health care evaluation mechanisms health care quality Humans Italy Middle Aged Oncology Nursing Quality control quality indicators Quality Indicators, Health Care Registries |
title | Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T12%3A08%3A23IST&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=Indicators%20based%20on%20registers%20and%20administrative%20data%20for%20breast%20cancer:%20routine%20evaluation%20of%20oncologic%20care%20pathway%20can%20be%20implemented&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20evaluation%20in%20clinical%20practice&rft.au=Andreano,%20Anita&rft.aucorp=OSSERVA%20Working%20Group&rft.date=2016-02&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=62&rft.epage=70&rft.pages=62-70&rft.issn=1356-1294&rft.eissn=1365-2753&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jep.12436&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2308358381%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=2308358381&rft_id=info:pmid/26290172&rfr_iscdi=true |