Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study
Purpose Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res ( 2013 ) im...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Supportive care in cancer 2023-10, Vol.31 (10), p.575, Article 575 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 575 |
container_title | Supportive care in cancer |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Salm, Hanna Hentschel, Leopold Eichler, Martin Pink, Daniel Fuhrmann, Stephan Kramer, Michael Reichardt, Peter Schuler, Markus K. |
description | Purpose
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (
2010
) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment.
Methods
We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
), was administered to group A.
Results
We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs.
Conclusion
Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10501936</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A765403685</galeid><sourcerecordid>A765403685</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-9a78db482438295da4b88ccaeb71377ff26f50a6072a544a42981e6df7aadd313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kt9qFTEQxhdR7LH6Al5IwBtvtuZ_Nt5IKa0KBW_0OmSzk2PKbnJMdgvnznfwDX2S5vQcWysiCQzM_ObLTPia5iXBJwRj9bZgLChuMWUt7jDhrX7UrAhnrFWM6cfNCmtOWs6EOGqelXKFMVFK0KfNEVMKK8nYqhnPr-242DmkiJJHMIKbc4rBoU1NQpx__fiZYZPyDANKy-zSBMiWAqVMtYpCrPeAImejg1xDhnfIIg-2hD6MYd6iMi_D9nnzxNuxwItDPG6-Xpx_OfvYXn7-8Ons9LJ1gtO51VZ1Q887yllHtRgs77vOOQu9InVy76n0AluJFbWCc8up7gjIwStrh4ERdty83-tuln6CwdXZsh3NJofJ5q1JNpiHlRi-mXW6NgQLTDSTVeHNQSGn7wuU2UyhOBhHGyEtxdBO8k5LSVhFX_-FXqUlx7rfLSW1wlzcU2s7ggnRp_qw24maUyUFx0x2O-rkH1Q9A0zBpQg-1PyDBrpvcDmVksHfLUmw2ZnE7E1iqknMrUmMrk2v_vyeu5bfrqgA2wOlluIa8v1K_5G9AVptyUY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2864697045</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Journals</source><creator>Salm, Hanna ; Hentschel, Leopold ; Eichler, Martin ; Pink, Daniel ; Fuhrmann, Stephan ; Kramer, Michael ; Reichardt, Peter ; Schuler, Markus K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Salm, Hanna ; Hentschel, Leopold ; Eichler, Martin ; Pink, Daniel ; Fuhrmann, Stephan ; Kramer, Michael ; Reichardt, Peter ; Schuler, Markus K.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (
2010
) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment.
Methods
We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
), was administered to group A.
Results
We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs.
Conclusion
Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0941-4355</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1433-7339</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-7339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37707633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Cancer ; Clinical outcomes ; Data collection ; Electronics ; Feasibility Studies ; Health care ; Hematology ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Inpatient care ; Inpatients ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Nursing ; Nursing Research ; Oncology ; Oncology, Experimental ; Pain Medicine ; Palliative care ; Patient outcomes ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Patients ; Physicians ; Quality of care ; Questionnaires ; Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><ispartof>Supportive care in cancer, 2023-10, Vol.31 (10), p.575, Article 575</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-9a78db482438295da4b88ccaeb71377ff26f50a6072a544a42981e6df7aadd313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-9a78db482438295da4b88ccaeb71377ff26f50a6072a544a42981e6df7aadd313</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37707633$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Salm, Hanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hentschel, Leopold</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eichler, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pink, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuhrmann, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichardt, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuler, Markus K.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study</title><title>Supportive care in cancer</title><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><description>Purpose
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (
2010
) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment.
Methods
We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
), was administered to group A.
Results
We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs.
Conclusion
Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Electronics</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inpatient care</subject><subject>Inpatients</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Research</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Oncology, Experimental</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Palliative care</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Quality of care</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><issn>0941-4355</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kt9qFTEQxhdR7LH6Al5IwBtvtuZ_Nt5IKa0KBW_0OmSzk2PKbnJMdgvnznfwDX2S5vQcWysiCQzM_ObLTPia5iXBJwRj9bZgLChuMWUt7jDhrX7UrAhnrFWM6cfNCmtOWs6EOGqelXKFMVFK0KfNEVMKK8nYqhnPr-242DmkiJJHMIKbc4rBoU1NQpx__fiZYZPyDANKy-zSBMiWAqVMtYpCrPeAImejg1xDhnfIIg-2hD6MYd6iMi_D9nnzxNuxwItDPG6-Xpx_OfvYXn7-8Ons9LJ1gtO51VZ1Q887yllHtRgs77vOOQu9InVy76n0AluJFbWCc8up7gjIwStrh4ERdty83-tuln6CwdXZsh3NJofJ5q1JNpiHlRi-mXW6NgQLTDSTVeHNQSGn7wuU2UyhOBhHGyEtxdBO8k5LSVhFX_-FXqUlx7rfLSW1wlzcU2s7ggnRp_qw24maUyUFx0x2O-rkH1Q9A0zBpQg-1PyDBrpvcDmVksHfLUmw2ZnE7E1iqknMrUmMrk2v_vyeu5bfrqgA2wOlluIa8v1K_5G9AVptyUY</recordid><startdate>20231001</startdate><enddate>20231001</enddate><creator>Salm, Hanna</creator><creator>Hentschel, Leopold</creator><creator>Eichler, Martin</creator><creator>Pink, Daniel</creator><creator>Fuhrmann, Stephan</creator><creator>Kramer, Michael</creator><creator>Reichardt, Peter</creator><creator>Schuler, Markus K.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</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>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231001</creationdate><title>Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study</title><author>Salm, Hanna ; Hentschel, Leopold ; Eichler, Martin ; Pink, Daniel ; Fuhrmann, Stephan ; Kramer, Michael ; Reichardt, Peter ; Schuler, Markus K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-9a78db482438295da4b88ccaeb71377ff26f50a6072a544a42981e6df7aadd313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Electronics</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inpatient care</topic><topic>Inpatients</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Research</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Oncology, Experimental</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Palliative care</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Quality of care</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Salm, Hanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hentschel, Leopold</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eichler, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pink, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuhrmann, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichardt, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuler, Markus K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</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 Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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 Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Salm, Hanna</au><au>Hentschel, Leopold</au><au>Eichler, Martin</au><au>Pink, Daniel</au><au>Fuhrmann, Stephan</au><au>Kramer, Michael</au><au>Reichardt, Peter</au><au>Schuler, Markus K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study</atitle><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle><stitle>Support Care Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><date>2023-10-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>575</spage><pages>575-</pages><artnum>575</artnum><issn>0941-4355</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><eissn>1433-7339</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (
2010
) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment.
Methods
We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (
2013
), was administered to group A.
Results
We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs.
Conclusion
Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>37707633</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0941-4355 |
ispartof | Supportive care in cancer, 2023-10, Vol.31 (10), p.575, Article 575 |
issn | 0941-4355 1433-7339 1433-7339 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10501936 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Journals |
subjects | Analysis Cancer Clinical outcomes Data collection Electronics Feasibility Studies Health care Hematology Hospitalization Humans Inpatient care Inpatients Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neoplasms - therapy Nursing Nursing Research Oncology Oncology, Experimental Pain Medicine Palliative care Patient outcomes Patient Reported Outcome Measures Patients Physicians Quality of care Questionnaires Rehabilitation Medicine |
title | Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T20%3A08%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20electronic%20patient%E2%80%93reported%20outcome%20assessment%20in%20inpatient%20cancer%20care:%20a%20feasibility%20study&rft.jtitle=Supportive%20care%20in%20cancer&rft.au=Salm,%20Hanna&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=575&rft.pages=575-&rft.artnum=575&rft.issn=0941-4355&rft.eissn=1433-7339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA765403685%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2864697045&rft_id=info:pmid/37707633&rft_galeid=A765403685&rfr_iscdi=true |