Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients
Background Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking. Objective To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2020-10, Vol.23 (5), p.1129-1143 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1143 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1129 |
container_title | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy |
container_volume | 23 |
creator | Tolvanen, Elina Groenewegen, Peter P. Koskela, Tuomas H. Bjerve Eide, Torunn Cohidon, Christine Kosunen, Elise |
description | Background
Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.
Objective
To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.
Design
We constructed multi‐level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.
Setting and Participants
A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.
Results
In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient‐level and only a few practice‐level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health‐care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.
Discussion and Conclusions
There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients’ perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient‐reported measures as an indicator of health‐care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/hex.13091 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7696125</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A710777473</galeid><sourcerecordid>A710777473</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5341-284707302eedaa26788d3c3d3a1dc8404bc44caad028b5364866b046d44512533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks1u1DAQxyMEomXhwAtAJC4gsVt_xU4ulapqoUiV4AASN8txJruuEifYSbe9ceAReEKehAnZForAPnjk-c1_PONJkqeUrCiuoy1crSgnBb2XHFIui6WSLLu_t2VG-UHyKMYLQqjiuXqYHHAmCWMkO0y-fTCDAz-k4E3ZQDuZph4gpCa1nY9jMyDQ-XTnhi3ebcBDME3aB2MHN3kg_Pj6fX3VN8Z55zfppQluDilh2AF41Bn9EBzE1_swCzE1vkr7OXd8nDyoTRPhyf5cJJ_erD-eni3P3799d3pyvrQZF3TJcqGI4oQBVMYwqfK84pZX3NDK5oKI0gphjakIy8uMS5FLWRIhKyEyyjLOF8nxrNuPZQuVxdxYi-6Da0241p1x-q7Hu63edJdayUJOCovk-Sxgg4uD89p3wWhK8ozpnCupkHi5TxG6LyPEQbcuWmga46Ebo2aCFqRQSklEX_yFXnRj8NgApPDx-EeC_6Y2pgHtfN3hy-wkqk8UJagk1ESt_kHhrqB1-I9QO7y_E_DqppIuxgD1bRco0dNQaRwq_WuokH32Z9tuyZspQuBoBnaY5fr_Svps_XmW_AkZudbD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2464826043</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Tolvanen, Elina ; Groenewegen, Peter P. ; Koskela, Tuomas H. ; Bjerve Eide, Torunn ; Cohidon, Christine ; Kosunen, Elise</creator><creatorcontrib>Tolvanen, Elina ; Groenewegen, Peter P. ; Koskela, Tuomas H. ; Bjerve Eide, Torunn ; Cohidon, Christine ; Kosunen, Elise</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.
Objective
To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.
Design
We constructed multi‐level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.
Setting and Participants
A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.
Results
In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient‐level and only a few practice‐level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health‐care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.
Discussion and Conclusions
There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients’ perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient‐reported measures as an indicator of health‐care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1369-6513</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1369-7625</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/hex.13091</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32602205</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Age ; Associations ; Chronic illnesses ; Collaboration ; Comparative analysis ; Continuity of care ; Cultural differences ; cultural dimensions ; Cultural factors ; Culture ; Family physicians ; Gender ; general practice ; Health care ; Health care access ; Health care expenditures ; Hypotheses ; Independent variables ; multi‐level modelling ; Original Research Paper ; Original Research Papers ; patient enablement ; Patient satisfaction ; Patients ; Perceptions ; Physicians (General practice) ; Primary care ; Primary health care ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Statistical analysis ; Structural members ; Variables ; Variance ; Variation ; Workloads</subject><ispartof>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020-10, Vol.23 (5), p.1129-1143</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>2020. 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><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5341-284707302eedaa26788d3c3d3a1dc8404bc44caad028b5364866b046d44512533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5341-284707302eedaa26788d3c3d3a1dc8404bc44caad028b5364866b046d44512533</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4691-8610</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696125/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696125/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1411,11541,12825,26544,27901,27902,30976,45550,45551,46027,46451,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32602205$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tolvanen, Elina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groenewegen, Peter P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koskela, Tuomas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bjerve Eide, Torunn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohidon, Christine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kosunen, Elise</creatorcontrib><title>Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients</title><title>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</title><addtitle>Health Expect</addtitle><description>Background
Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.
Objective
To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.
Design
We constructed multi‐level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.
Setting and Participants
A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.
Results
In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient‐level and only a few practice‐level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health‐care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.
Discussion and Conclusions
There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients’ perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient‐reported measures as an indicator of health‐care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Associations</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Continuity of care</subject><subject>Cultural differences</subject><subject>cultural dimensions</subject><subject>Cultural factors</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Family physicians</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>general practice</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health care access</subject><subject>Health care expenditures</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Independent variables</subject><subject>multi‐level modelling</subject><subject>Original Research Paper</subject><subject>Original Research Papers</subject><subject>patient enablement</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Physicians (General practice)</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary health care</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Structural members</subject><subject>Variables</subject><subject>Variance</subject><subject>Variation</subject><subject>Workloads</subject><issn>1369-6513</issn><issn>1369-7625</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>3HK</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks1u1DAQxyMEomXhwAtAJC4gsVt_xU4ulapqoUiV4AASN8txJruuEifYSbe9ceAReEKehAnZForAPnjk-c1_PONJkqeUrCiuoy1crSgnBb2XHFIui6WSLLu_t2VG-UHyKMYLQqjiuXqYHHAmCWMkO0y-fTCDAz-k4E3ZQDuZph4gpCa1nY9jMyDQ-XTnhi3ebcBDME3aB2MHN3kg_Pj6fX3VN8Z55zfppQluDilh2AF41Bn9EBzE1_swCzE1vkr7OXd8nDyoTRPhyf5cJJ_erD-eni3P3799d3pyvrQZF3TJcqGI4oQBVMYwqfK84pZX3NDK5oKI0gphjakIy8uMS5FLWRIhKyEyyjLOF8nxrNuPZQuVxdxYi-6Da0241p1x-q7Hu63edJdayUJOCovk-Sxgg4uD89p3wWhK8ozpnCupkHi5TxG6LyPEQbcuWmga46Ebo2aCFqRQSklEX_yFXnRj8NgApPDx-EeC_6Y2pgHtfN3hy-wkqk8UJagk1ESt_kHhrqB1-I9QO7y_E_DqppIuxgD1bRco0dNQaRwq_WuokH32Z9tuyZspQuBoBnaY5fr_Svps_XmW_AkZudbD</recordid><startdate>202010</startdate><enddate>202010</enddate><creator>Tolvanen, Elina</creator><creator>Groenewegen, Peter P.</creator><creator>Koskela, Tuomas H.</creator><creator>Bjerve Eide, Torunn</creator><creator>Cohidon, Christine</creator><creator>Kosunen, Elise</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>3HK</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-8610</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202010</creationdate><title>Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients</title><author>Tolvanen, Elina ; Groenewegen, Peter P. ; Koskela, Tuomas H. ; Bjerve Eide, Torunn ; Cohidon, Christine ; Kosunen, Elise</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5341-284707302eedaa26788d3c3d3a1dc8404bc44caad028b5364866b046d44512533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Associations</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Continuity of care</topic><topic>Cultural differences</topic><topic>cultural dimensions</topic><topic>Cultural factors</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Family physicians</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>general practice</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health care access</topic><topic>Health care expenditures</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Independent variables</topic><topic>multi‐level modelling</topic><topic>Original Research Paper</topic><topic>Original Research Papers</topic><topic>patient enablement</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Physicians (General practice)</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary health care</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Structural members</topic><topic>Variables</topic><topic>Variance</topic><topic>Variation</topic><topic>Workloads</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tolvanen, Elina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groenewegen, Peter P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koskela, Tuomas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bjerve Eide, Torunn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohidon, Christine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kosunen, Elise</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</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 Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</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>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tolvanen, Elina</au><au>Groenewegen, Peter P.</au><au>Koskela, Tuomas H.</au><au>Bjerve Eide, Torunn</au><au>Cohidon, Christine</au><au>Kosunen, Elise</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients</atitle><jtitle>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</jtitle><addtitle>Health Expect</addtitle><date>2020-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1129</spage><epage>1143</epage><pages>1129-1143</pages><issn>1369-6513</issn><eissn>1369-7625</eissn><abstract>Background
Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.
Objective
To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.
Design
We constructed multi‐level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.
Setting and Participants
A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.
Results
In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient‐level and only a few practice‐level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health‐care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.
Discussion and Conclusions
There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients’ perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient‐reported measures as an indicator of health‐care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>32602205</pmid><doi>10.1111/hex.13091</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-8610</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1369-6513 |
ispartof | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020-10, Vol.23 (5), p.1129-1143 |
issn | 1369-6513 1369-7625 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7696125 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives; Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Age Associations Chronic illnesses Collaboration Comparative analysis Continuity of care Cultural differences cultural dimensions Cultural factors Culture Family physicians Gender general practice Health care Health care access Health care expenditures Hypotheses Independent variables multi‐level modelling Original Research Paper Original Research Papers patient enablement Patient satisfaction Patients Perceptions Physicians (General practice) Primary care Primary health care Regression analysis Regression models Statistical analysis Structural members Variables Variance Variation Workloads |
title | Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T22%3A11%3A46IST&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=Patient%20enablement%20after%20a%20consultation%20with%20a%20general%20practitioner%E2%80%94Explaining%20variation%20between%20countries,%20practices%20and%20patients&rft.jtitle=Health%20expectations%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20public%20participation%20in%20health%20care%20and%20health%20policy&rft.au=Tolvanen,%20Elina&rft.date=2020-10&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1129&rft.epage=1143&rft.pages=1129-1143&rft.issn=1369-6513&rft.eissn=1369-7625&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/hex.13091&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA710777473%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=2464826043&rft_id=info:pmid/32602205&rft_galeid=A710777473&rfr_iscdi=true |