What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment
•Vaccine safety was two times more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination.•Arranging vaccination by “walk-in” can increase the vaccination uptake rate by over 50%.•Implementing mobile vaccination stations can increase the vaccination uptake by over 40%. This study examined the r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Vaccine 2020-06, Vol.38 (29), p.4557-4563 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 4563 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 29 |
| container_start_page | 4557 |
| container_title | Vaccine |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Liao, Qiuyan Ng, Tiffany W.Y. Cowling, Benjamin J. |
| description | •Vaccine safety was two times more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination.•Arranging vaccination by “walk-in” can increase the vaccination uptake rate by over 50%.•Implementing mobile vaccination stations can increase the vaccination uptake by over 40%.
This study examined the relative importance of factors relating to vaccine characteristics, social normative influence and convenience in access to vaccine for determining decision making for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) among healthcare personnel (HCP), aiming to optimize existing influenza vaccination programmes for HCP.
A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in HCP working in public hospitals in Hong Kong. The DCE was designed to examine the relative importance of vaccine characteristics (vaccine efficacy and safety), social normative influence reflected by the proportion of HCP colleagues intending to take SIV, and convenience in access to vaccine indicated by vaccination programme duration, vaccination location, vaccination arrangement procedure and service hours in determining influenza vaccination choice among HCP. Mixed logit regression modelling was conducted to examine the preference weight (β) of factors included in the DCE for determining vaccination choice.
Vaccination probability increased with increase in vaccine efficacy (β = 0.02 for per 1% increase), vaccination location changing from “designated staff clinic” to “mobile station” (β = 0.37), vaccination arrangement procedure changing from “by appointment” to “by walk-in” (β = 0.99), but decreased with the increase in probability of mild reactions to vaccination (β = −0.05 for per 1% increase).
Vaccine safety was judged to be more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination choice. Arranging vaccination service by walk-in and implementing mobile vaccination station should be considered in future SIV programmes to compensate for the effect of perceived low vaccination efficacy and concerns about vaccine safety to promote SIV uptake among HCP. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.012 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7252056</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0264410X20306307</els_id><sourcerecordid>2404042494</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-d2f6de4e5ec53ddd1aaf6dd827a9d22ab3933a65dc60892eddeca04fe900546d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUcFu1DAQtRCIbgufALLEhUuC7dje5EJVVVCQKnEBwc3y2pPGq8Re7GTV8vVM2aUCLsiHkWfevJk3j5AXnNWccf1mW--tcyFCLZhgNVM14-IRWfF23VRC8fYxWTGhZSU5-3ZCTkvZMsZUw7un5KQRkkut5IqEr4OdaYj9uED8YemB1M4hRbrL6SbbaYJCbQb8Qg85g6ebOzqAHefB_cpDLilGGM_pBfWhuAwzUDek4IDCLZbDBHF-Rp70dizw_BjPyJf37z5ffqiuP119vLy4rpzs1Fx50WsPEhQ41XjvubWY8K1Y284LYTdN1zRWK-80azsB3oOzTPbQoTqpfXNG3h54d8tmAu9wdLaj2eEWNt-ZZIP5uxLDYG7S3qyFEkxpJHh9JMjp-wJlNhOKgnG0EdJSjJAMn5CdROirf6DbtOSI8hAllO54qzii1AHlcioFr_iwDGfm3kyzNUczzb2ZhimDZmLfyz-VPHT9dg8B5wcA4D33AbIpLkB04EMGNxufwn9G_ATmhbaJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2425691851</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Liao, Qiuyan ; Ng, Tiffany W.Y. ; Cowling, Benjamin J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Liao, Qiuyan ; Ng, Tiffany W.Y. ; Cowling, Benjamin J.</creatorcontrib><description>•Vaccine safety was two times more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination.•Arranging vaccination by “walk-in” can increase the vaccination uptake rate by over 50%.•Implementing mobile vaccination stations can increase the vaccination uptake by over 40%.
This study examined the relative importance of factors relating to vaccine characteristics, social normative influence and convenience in access to vaccine for determining decision making for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) among healthcare personnel (HCP), aiming to optimize existing influenza vaccination programmes for HCP.
A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in HCP working in public hospitals in Hong Kong. The DCE was designed to examine the relative importance of vaccine characteristics (vaccine efficacy and safety), social normative influence reflected by the proportion of HCP colleagues intending to take SIV, and convenience in access to vaccine indicated by vaccination programme duration, vaccination location, vaccination arrangement procedure and service hours in determining influenza vaccination choice among HCP. Mixed logit regression modelling was conducted to examine the preference weight (β) of factors included in the DCE for determining vaccination choice.
Vaccination probability increased with increase in vaccine efficacy (β = 0.02 for per 1% increase), vaccination location changing from “designated staff clinic” to “mobile station” (β = 0.37), vaccination arrangement procedure changing from “by appointment” to “by walk-in” (β = 0.99), but decreased with the increase in probability of mild reactions to vaccination (β = −0.05 for per 1% increase).
Vaccine safety was judged to be more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination choice. Arranging vaccination service by walk-in and implementing mobile vaccination station should be considered in future SIV programmes to compensate for the effect of perceived low vaccination efficacy and concerns about vaccine safety to promote SIV uptake among HCP.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0264-410X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2518</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32414654</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Absenteeism ; Decision making ; Health care ; Health Personnel ; Hong Kong ; Humans ; Immunization ; Infections ; Influence ; Influenza ; Influenza vaccine ; Influenza Vaccines ; Influenza, Human - prevention & control ; Medical personnel ; Personnel ; Preference ; Public sector ; Questionnaires ; Safety ; Seasons ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Vaccination ; Vaccination choice ; Vaccine efficacy ; Vaccines</subject><ispartof>Vaccine, 2020-06, Vol.38 (29), p.4557-4563</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2020. Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 2020 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-d2f6de4e5ec53ddd1aaf6dd827a9d22ab3933a65dc60892eddeca04fe900546d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-d2f6de4e5ec53ddd1aaf6dd827a9d22ab3933a65dc60892eddeca04fe900546d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6297-7154 ; 0000-0002-1105-6857</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20306307$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32414654$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liao, Qiuyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Tiffany W.Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cowling, Benjamin J.</creatorcontrib><title>What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment</title><title>Vaccine</title><addtitle>Vaccine</addtitle><description>•Vaccine safety was two times more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination.•Arranging vaccination by “walk-in” can increase the vaccination uptake rate by over 50%.•Implementing mobile vaccination stations can increase the vaccination uptake by over 40%.
This study examined the relative importance of factors relating to vaccine characteristics, social normative influence and convenience in access to vaccine for determining decision making for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) among healthcare personnel (HCP), aiming to optimize existing influenza vaccination programmes for HCP.
A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in HCP working in public hospitals in Hong Kong. The DCE was designed to examine the relative importance of vaccine characteristics (vaccine efficacy and safety), social normative influence reflected by the proportion of HCP colleagues intending to take SIV, and convenience in access to vaccine indicated by vaccination programme duration, vaccination location, vaccination arrangement procedure and service hours in determining influenza vaccination choice among HCP. Mixed logit regression modelling was conducted to examine the preference weight (β) of factors included in the DCE for determining vaccination choice.
Vaccination probability increased with increase in vaccine efficacy (β = 0.02 for per 1% increase), vaccination location changing from “designated staff clinic” to “mobile station” (β = 0.37), vaccination arrangement procedure changing from “by appointment” to “by walk-in” (β = 0.99), but decreased with the increase in probability of mild reactions to vaccination (β = −0.05 for per 1% increase).
Vaccine safety was judged to be more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination choice. Arranging vaccination service by walk-in and implementing mobile vaccination station should be considered in future SIV programmes to compensate for the effect of perceived low vaccination efficacy and concerns about vaccine safety to promote SIV uptake among HCP.</description><subject>Absenteeism</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Personnel</subject><subject>Hong Kong</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunization</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Influenza</subject><subject>Influenza vaccine</subject><subject>Influenza Vaccines</subject><subject>Influenza, Human - prevention & control</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Personnel</subject><subject>Preference</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Seasons</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Vaccination</subject><subject>Vaccination choice</subject><subject>Vaccine efficacy</subject><subject>Vaccines</subject><issn>0264-410X</issn><issn>1873-2518</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUcFu1DAQtRCIbgufALLEhUuC7dje5EJVVVCQKnEBwc3y2pPGq8Re7GTV8vVM2aUCLsiHkWfevJk3j5AXnNWccf1mW--tcyFCLZhgNVM14-IRWfF23VRC8fYxWTGhZSU5-3ZCTkvZMsZUw7un5KQRkkut5IqEr4OdaYj9uED8YemB1M4hRbrL6SbbaYJCbQb8Qg85g6ebOzqAHefB_cpDLilGGM_pBfWhuAwzUDek4IDCLZbDBHF-Rp70dizw_BjPyJf37z5ffqiuP119vLy4rpzs1Fx50WsPEhQ41XjvubWY8K1Y284LYTdN1zRWK-80azsB3oOzTPbQoTqpfXNG3h54d8tmAu9wdLaj2eEWNt-ZZIP5uxLDYG7S3qyFEkxpJHh9JMjp-wJlNhOKgnG0EdJSjJAMn5CdROirf6DbtOSI8hAllO54qzii1AHlcioFr_iwDGfm3kyzNUczzb2ZhimDZmLfyz-VPHT9dg8B5wcA4D33AbIpLkB04EMGNxufwn9G_ATmhbaJ</recordid><startdate>20200615</startdate><enddate>20200615</enddate><creator>Liao, Qiuyan</creator><creator>Ng, Tiffany W.Y.</creator><creator>Cowling, Benjamin J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</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>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-7154</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1105-6857</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200615</creationdate><title>What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment</title><author>Liao, Qiuyan ; Ng, Tiffany W.Y. ; Cowling, Benjamin J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-d2f6de4e5ec53ddd1aaf6dd827a9d22ab3933a65dc60892eddeca04fe900546d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Absenteeism</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Personnel</topic><topic>Hong Kong</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunization</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Influenza</topic><topic>Influenza vaccine</topic><topic>Influenza Vaccines</topic><topic>Influenza, Human - prevention & control</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Personnel</topic><topic>Preference</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Seasons</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Vaccination</topic><topic>Vaccination choice</topic><topic>Vaccine efficacy</topic><topic>Vaccines</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liao, Qiuyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Tiffany W.Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cowling, Benjamin J.</creatorcontrib><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>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science 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)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</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>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</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>Vaccine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liao, Qiuyan</au><au>Ng, Tiffany W.Y.</au><au>Cowling, Benjamin J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment</atitle><jtitle>Vaccine</jtitle><addtitle>Vaccine</addtitle><date>2020-06-15</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>29</issue><spage>4557</spage><epage>4563</epage><pages>4557-4563</pages><issn>0264-410X</issn><eissn>1873-2518</eissn><abstract>•Vaccine safety was two times more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination.•Arranging vaccination by “walk-in” can increase the vaccination uptake rate by over 50%.•Implementing mobile vaccination stations can increase the vaccination uptake by over 40%.
This study examined the relative importance of factors relating to vaccine characteristics, social normative influence and convenience in access to vaccine for determining decision making for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) among healthcare personnel (HCP), aiming to optimize existing influenza vaccination programmes for HCP.
A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in HCP working in public hospitals in Hong Kong. The DCE was designed to examine the relative importance of vaccine characteristics (vaccine efficacy and safety), social normative influence reflected by the proportion of HCP colleagues intending to take SIV, and convenience in access to vaccine indicated by vaccination programme duration, vaccination location, vaccination arrangement procedure and service hours in determining influenza vaccination choice among HCP. Mixed logit regression modelling was conducted to examine the preference weight (β) of factors included in the DCE for determining vaccination choice.
Vaccination probability increased with increase in vaccine efficacy (β = 0.02 for per 1% increase), vaccination location changing from “designated staff clinic” to “mobile station” (β = 0.37), vaccination arrangement procedure changing from “by appointment” to “by walk-in” (β = 0.99), but decreased with the increase in probability of mild reactions to vaccination (β = −0.05 for per 1% increase).
Vaccine safety was judged to be more important than vaccine efficacy for determining vaccination choice. Arranging vaccination service by walk-in and implementing mobile vaccination station should be considered in future SIV programmes to compensate for the effect of perceived low vaccination efficacy and concerns about vaccine safety to promote SIV uptake among HCP.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32414654</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.012</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-7154</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1105-6857</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0264-410X |
| ispartof | Vaccine, 2020-06, Vol.38 (29), p.4557-4563 |
| issn | 0264-410X 1873-2518 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7252056 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Absenteeism Decision making Health care Health Personnel Hong Kong Humans Immunization Infections Influence Influenza Influenza vaccine Influenza Vaccines Influenza, Human - prevention & control Medical personnel Personnel Preference Public sector Questionnaires Safety Seasons Statistical analysis Studies Vaccination Vaccination choice Vaccine efficacy Vaccines |
| title | What influenza vaccination programmes are preferred by healthcare personnel? A discrete choice experiment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T01%3A31%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20influenza%20vaccination%20programmes%20are%20preferred%20by%20healthcare%20personnel?%20A%20discrete%20choice%20experiment&rft.jtitle=Vaccine&rft.au=Liao,%20Qiuyan&rft.date=2020-06-15&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=29&rft.spage=4557&rft.epage=4563&rft.pages=4557-4563&rft.issn=0264-410X&rft.eissn=1873-2518&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2404042494%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2425691851&rft_id=info:pmid/32414654&rft_els_id=S0264410X20306307&rfr_iscdi=true |