The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II

In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 1999-01, Vol.34 (1), p.53-59
Hauptverfasser: SANDANGER, I, MOUM, T, INGEBRIGTSEN, G, SØRENSEN, T, DALGARD, O. S, BRUUSGAARD, D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 59
container_issue 1
container_start_page 53
container_title Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
container_volume 34
creator SANDANGER, I
MOUM, T
INGEBRIGTSEN, G
SØRENSEN, T
DALGARD, O. S
BRUUSGAARD, D
description In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s001270050112
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69612854</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>972289211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-e277ae605fbf56eca7c35456c82381149d0a4d7bdc2a6d087af7bb5d6634df083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0U1v1DAQBmALgehSOHJFFkLcUvzthFu1fHSlShwo58hxJlu3iR0yXlDP_PF62ZVoOXkkPzPSzEvIa87OOGP2AzLGhWVMM87FE7LiSsqqEbV-SlasKbVttDohLxBvGGOysfI5Odl3Si7Eivy5ugY6gYshbqmLPcWwjWEI3kUPNA3UO4QIiPQjzYVepPk2RKTf76Y5p4mur8HfjgFzJfTf_j1ap2lOGDLQTcywRJdDim6kn4LbxoQ5-MPHrwC_6Wbzkjwb3Ijw6viekh9fPl-tL6rLb1836_PLykulcwXCWgeG6aEbtAHvrJdaaeNrIWvOVdMzp3rb9V4407PausF2ne6NkaofWC1PyfvD3HlJP3eAuZ0CehhHFyHtsDWN4eVwqsC3_8GbtCtrjNgKWYxRihVUHZBfEuICQzsvYXLLXctZuz9w-yia4t8ch-66CfoH-pBFAe-OwKF347CUCAL-c6YWXBt5D7vPlb4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>236126440</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>SANDANGER, I ; MOUM, T ; INGEBRIGTSEN, G ; SØRENSEN, T ; DALGARD, O. S ; BRUUSGAARD, D</creator><creatorcontrib>SANDANGER, I ; MOUM, T ; INGEBRIGTSEN, G ; SØRENSEN, T ; DALGARD, O. S ; BRUUSGAARD, D</creatorcontrib><description>In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0933-7954</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-9285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s001270050112</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10073122</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SPPEEM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Anxiety - diagnosis ; Anxiety - epidemiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Case-Control Studies ; Depression - diagnosis ; Depression - epidemiology ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Humans ; Interviews ; Linear Models ; Male ; Mass Screening - instrumentation ; Medical sciences ; Mental Disorders - classification ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - epidemiology ; Middle Aged ; Odds Ratio ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometrics ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Random Allocation ; Response rates ; Sampling Studies ; Techniques and methods</subject><ispartof>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1999-01, Vol.34 (1), p.53-59</ispartof><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Steinkopff Verlag 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-e277ae605fbf56eca7c35456c82381149d0a4d7bdc2a6d087af7bb5d6634df083</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1682156$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10073122$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SANDANGER, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MOUM, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SØRENSEN, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DALGARD, O. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BRUUSGAARD, D</creatorcontrib><title>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</title><title>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</title><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><description>In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anxiety - diagnosis</subject><subject>Anxiety - epidemiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Depression - diagnosis</subject><subject>Depression - epidemiology</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - instrumentation</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - classification</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - epidemiology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Sampling Studies</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><issn>0933-7954</issn><issn>1433-9285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0U1v1DAQBmALgehSOHJFFkLcUvzthFu1fHSlShwo58hxJlu3iR0yXlDP_PF62ZVoOXkkPzPSzEvIa87OOGP2AzLGhWVMM87FE7LiSsqqEbV-SlasKbVttDohLxBvGGOysfI5Odl3Si7Eivy5ugY6gYshbqmLPcWwjWEI3kUPNA3UO4QIiPQjzYVepPk2RKTf76Y5p4mur8HfjgFzJfTf_j1ap2lOGDLQTcywRJdDim6kn4LbxoQ5-MPHrwC_6Wbzkjwb3Ijw6viekh9fPl-tL6rLb1836_PLykulcwXCWgeG6aEbtAHvrJdaaeNrIWvOVdMzp3rb9V4407PausF2ne6NkaofWC1PyfvD3HlJP3eAuZ0CehhHFyHtsDWN4eVwqsC3_8GbtCtrjNgKWYxRihVUHZBfEuICQzsvYXLLXctZuz9w-yia4t8ch-66CfoH-pBFAe-OwKF347CUCAL-c6YWXBt5D7vPlb4</recordid><startdate>19990101</startdate><enddate>19990101</enddate><creator>SANDANGER, I</creator><creator>MOUM, T</creator><creator>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</creator><creator>SØRENSEN, T</creator><creator>DALGARD, O. S</creator><creator>BRUUSGAARD, D</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</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>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990101</creationdate><title>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</title><author>SANDANGER, I ; MOUM, T ; INGEBRIGTSEN, G ; SØRENSEN, T ; DALGARD, O. S ; BRUUSGAARD, D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-e277ae605fbf56eca7c35456c82381149d0a4d7bdc2a6d087af7bb5d6634df083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anxiety - diagnosis</topic><topic>Anxiety - epidemiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Depression - diagnosis</topic><topic>Depression - epidemiology</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - instrumentation</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - classification</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - epidemiology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Sampling Studies</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SANDANGER, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MOUM, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SØRENSEN, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DALGARD, O. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BRUUSGAARD, D</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</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>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</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>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SANDANGER, I</au><au>MOUM, T</au><au>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</au><au>SØRENSEN, T</au><au>DALGARD, O. S</au><au>BRUUSGAARD, D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</atitle><jtitle>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><date>1999-01-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>53</spage><epage>59</epage><pages>53-59</pages><issn>0933-7954</issn><eissn>1433-9285</eissn><coden>SPPEEM</coden><abstract>In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>10073122</pmid><doi>10.1007/s001270050112</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0933-7954
ispartof Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1999-01, Vol.34 (1), p.53-59
issn 0933-7954
1433-9285
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69612854
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Anxiety - diagnosis
Anxiety - epidemiology
Biological and medical sciences
Case-Control Studies
Depression - diagnosis
Depression - epidemiology
Diagnosis, Differential
Epidemiology
Female
Humans
Interviews
Linear Models
Male
Mass Screening - instrumentation
Medical sciences
Mental Disorders - classification
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental Disorders - epidemiology
Middle Aged
Odds Ratio
Predictive Value of Tests
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Random Allocation
Response rates
Sampling Studies
Techniques and methods
title The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T02%3A57%3A40IST&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=The%20meaning%20and%20significance%20of%20caseness%20:%20the%20Hopkins%20Symptom%20Checklist-25%20and%20the%20Composite%20International%20Diagnostic%20Interview%20II&rft.jtitle=Social%20Psychiatry%20and%20Psychiatric%20Epidemiology&rft.au=SANDANGER,%20I&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=53&rft.epage=59&rft.pages=53-59&rft.issn=0933-7954&rft.eissn=1433-9285&rft.coden=SPPEEM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s001270050112&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E972289211%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=236126440&rft_id=info:pmid/10073122&rfr_iscdi=true