Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation
Aim The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice). Methods This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of nursing practice 2024-12, Vol.30 (6), p.e13291-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | e13291 |
container_title | International journal of nursing practice |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes Lima Trindade, Letícia Rocha, Carla Gomes Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral Mendes, Mariana Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina Conceição Alves Faria, Ana Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura Sousa, Clemente Neves |
description | Aim
The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice).
Methods
This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity.
Results
The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model.
Conclusion
The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version.
Summary statement
What is already known about this topic?
Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts.
The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement.
Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses.
What this paper adds?
The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome.
The implications of this paper:
This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community.
It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement st |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ijn.13291 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084773667</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3084773667</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2781-495589db17349467daba5c7f8a4770c364e889fa70362bdd48b4e6eae0a67b5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctKxTAQhoMo3he-gATc6KKaNGnSuhPxiqiggruSplNPDm2iSXvk7HwIn9AnMXpURHA2mQwfH5P8CG1Qsktj7Zmx3aUsLegcWqack4TK9H4-9ixNE0kpX0IrIYwJiQOaLaIlVpCM8lQso3CjVQu4cR73I8BgJ8Y724HtA4aJagfVG2exa_Cjdw2EEG-qxXbwwdiHOFS6NxreXl7DyPkeLNR4Av4D28fXYapHroPeG_3LtoYWGtUGWP86V9Hd8dHt4WlycXVydnhwkehU5jThRZblRV1RyXjBhaxVpTItm1xxKYlmgkOeF42ShIm0qmueVxwEKCBKyCqr2Srannnj6k8DhL7sTNDQtsqCG0LJSB5NTAgZ0a0_6NgNPr40UpTxTPBc0kjtzCjtXQgemvLRm075aUlJ-ZFEGZMoP5OI7OaXcag6qH_I76-PwN4MeDYtTP83lWfnlzPlOweelXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3134564871</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes ; Lima Trindade, Letícia ; Rocha, Carla Gomes ; Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral ; Mendes, Mariana ; Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia ; Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina ; Conceição Alves Faria, Ana ; Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura ; Sousa, Clemente Neves</creator><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes ; Lima Trindade, Letícia ; Rocha, Carla Gomes ; Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral ; Mendes, Mariana ; Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia ; Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina ; Conceição Alves Faria, Ana ; Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura ; Sousa, Clemente Neves</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice).
Methods
This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity.
Results
The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model.
Conclusion
The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version.
Summary statement
What is already known about this topic?
Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts.
The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement.
Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses.
What this paper adds?
The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome.
The implications of this paper:
This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community.
It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement strategies in nursing practice environments with the shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice, saving time associated with its completion, which will have a positive impact on participant adherence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1322-7114</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1440-172X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1440-172X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ijn.13291</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39051426</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Confirmatory factor analysis ; Cronbach's alpha ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Exploratory factor analysis ; Female ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Male ; Measurement ; Measures ; Middle Aged ; Nursing ; Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology ; Portugal ; Professional practice ; Psychometrics ; Quantitative psychology ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; validation study ; Validity ; working environment</subject><ispartof>International journal of nursing practice, 2024-12, Vol.30 (6), p.e13291-n/a</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.</rights><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2781-495589db17349467daba5c7f8a4770c364e889fa70362bdd48b4e6eae0a67b5d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9982-9537</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fijn.13291$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fijn.13291$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,30980,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39051426$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima Trindade, Letícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocha, Carla Gomes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendes, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sousa, Clemente Neves</creatorcontrib><title>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</title><title>International journal of nursing practice</title><addtitle>Int J Nurs Pract</addtitle><description>Aim
The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice).
Methods
This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity.
Results
The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model.
Conclusion
The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version.
Summary statement
What is already known about this topic?
Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts.
The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement.
Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses.
What this paper adds?
The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome.
The implications of this paper:
This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community.
It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement strategies in nursing practice environments with the shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice, saving time associated with its completion, which will have a positive impact on participant adherence.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Confirmatory factor analysis</subject><subject>Cronbach's alpha</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Exploratory factor analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Measures</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology</subject><subject>Portugal</subject><subject>Professional practice</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>validation study</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>working environment</subject><issn>1322-7114</issn><issn>1440-172X</issn><issn>1440-172X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kctKxTAQhoMo3he-gATc6KKaNGnSuhPxiqiggruSplNPDm2iSXvk7HwIn9AnMXpURHA2mQwfH5P8CG1Qsktj7Zmx3aUsLegcWqack4TK9H4-9ixNE0kpX0IrIYwJiQOaLaIlVpCM8lQso3CjVQu4cR73I8BgJ8Y724HtA4aJagfVG2exa_Cjdw2EEG-qxXbwwdiHOFS6NxreXl7DyPkeLNR4Av4D28fXYapHroPeG_3LtoYWGtUGWP86V9Hd8dHt4WlycXVydnhwkehU5jThRZblRV1RyXjBhaxVpTItm1xxKYlmgkOeF42ShIm0qmueVxwEKCBKyCqr2Srannnj6k8DhL7sTNDQtsqCG0LJSB5NTAgZ0a0_6NgNPr40UpTxTPBc0kjtzCjtXQgemvLRm075aUlJ-ZFEGZMoP5OI7OaXcag6qH_I76-PwN4MeDYtTP83lWfnlzPlOweelXw</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</creator><creator>Lima Trindade, Letícia</creator><creator>Rocha, Carla Gomes</creator><creator>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</creator><creator>Mendes, Mariana</creator><creator>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</creator><creator>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</creator><creator>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</creator><creator>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</creator><creator>Sousa, Clemente Neves</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><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>7QJ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9982-9537</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</title><author>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes ; Lima Trindade, Letícia ; Rocha, Carla Gomes ; Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral ; Mendes, Mariana ; Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia ; Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina ; Conceição Alves Faria, Ana ; Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura ; Sousa, Clemente Neves</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2781-495589db17349467daba5c7f8a4770c364e889fa70362bdd48b4e6eae0a67b5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Confirmatory factor analysis</topic><topic>Cronbach's alpha</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Exploratory factor analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Measures</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology</topic><topic>Portugal</topic><topic>Professional practice</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>validation study</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>working environment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lima Trindade, Letícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocha, Carla Gomes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mendes, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sousa, Clemente Neves</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of nursing practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ribeiro, Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes</au><au>Lima Trindade, Letícia</au><au>Rocha, Carla Gomes</au><au>Teles, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral</au><au>Mendes, Mariana</au><au>Ribeiro, Marlene Patrícia</au><au>Abreu Pereira, Soraia Cristina</au><au>Conceição Alves Faria, Ana</au><au>Silva, João Miguel Almeida Ventura</au><au>Sousa, Clemente Neves</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation</atitle><jtitle>International journal of nursing practice</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Nurs Pract</addtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e13291</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e13291-n/a</pages><issn>1322-7114</issn><issn>1440-172X</issn><eissn>1440-172X</eissn><abstract>Aim
The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice).
Methods
This methodological, cross‐sectional study was conducted between September and December 2022. The original version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice was administered in questionnaire format across 17 hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to identify relevant items for the new shortened version of the scale and evaluate its construct validity.
Results
The study involved 1713 registered nurses from various regions of Portugal. From the exploratory factor analysis, the SEE‐Nursing Practice was condensed to 59 items and 3 subscales. In the structure subscale, 14 items were removed, and the remaining 29 items distributed over four factors; in the process subscale, 18 items were removed, and the remaining 19 items organized into three factors; in the outcome subscale, 2 items were removed, and the remaining 11 items distributed over two factors. The Cronbach's alpha for the three subscales exceeded 0.90, indicating high reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the 59‐item model.
Conclusion
The shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice shows adequate validity and reliability, reducing the burden associated with its longer version.
Summary statement
What is already known about this topic?
Given the impact of nursing practice environments on clients, nurses, and institutions, it is essential to have tools that allow for understanding the reality of practice contexts.
The use of tools to evaluate nursing practice environments enables the measurement of the impact of interventions implemented with a view to their continuous improvement.
Lengthy assessment tools can result in a greater response burden for the participant and, consequently, a lower response rate and poor quality of those responses.
What this paper adds?
The shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice was considered valid and reliable for assessing practice environments from the standpoint of structure, process, and outcome.
The implications of this paper:
This study makes the shortened version of the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice (SEE‐Nursing Practice) available to the scientific community.
It enables the assessment and proposal of improvement strategies in nursing practice environments with the shortened version of the SEE‐Nursing Practice, saving time associated with its completion, which will have a positive impact on participant adherence.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>39051426</pmid><doi>10.1111/ijn.13291</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9982-9537</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1322-7114 |
ispartof | International journal of nursing practice, 2024-12, Vol.30 (6), p.e13291-n/a |
issn | 1322-7114 1440-172X 1440-172X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084773667 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Adult Confirmatory factor analysis Cronbach's alpha Cross-Sectional Studies Exploratory factor analysis Female Hospitals Humans Male Measurement Measures Middle Aged Nursing Nursing Staff, Hospital - psychology Portugal Professional practice Psychometrics Quantitative psychology Reliability Reproducibility of Results Surveys and Questionnaires - standards validation study Validity working environment |
title | Scale for the environments evaluation of professional nursing practice—shortened version: Psychometric evaluation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T13%3A10%3A33IST&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=Scale%20for%20the%20environments%20evaluation%20of%20professional%20nursing%20practice%E2%80%94shortened%20version:%20Psychometric%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20nursing%20practice&rft.au=Ribeiro,%20Olga%20Maria%20Pimenta%20Lopes&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e13291&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e13291-n/a&rft.issn=1322-7114&rft.eissn=1440-172X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ijn.13291&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3084773667%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=3134564871&rft_id=info:pmid/39051426&rfr_iscdi=true |