Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators

Background Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2021-11, Vol.36 (11), p.3346-3352
Hauptverfasser: Casas, Rachel S., Prifti, Christine A., Bachorik, Alexandra E., Stuckey, Heather, Sobota, Mindy, Chuang, Cynthia H., Weisman, Carol S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3352
container_issue 11
container_start_page 3346
container_title Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM
container_volume 36
creator Casas, Rachel S.
Prifti, Christine A.
Bachorik, Alexandra E.
Stuckey, Heather
Sobota, Mindy
Chuang, Cynthia H.
Weisman, Carol S.
description Background Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response, internists are integrating LARCs into IM practices and residency training. Objective This study examines the approaches, facilitators, and barriers reported by IM faculty to incorporating LARCs into IM clinics and resident education. Design We interviewed faculty who were prior or current LARC providers and/or teachers in 15 IM departments nationally. Each had implemented or attempted to implement LARC training for residents in their IM practice. Semi-structured interviews were used. Participants Eligible participants were a convenience sample of clinicians identified as key informants at each institution. Approach We used inductive thematic coding analysis to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. Key Results Fourteen respondents currently offered LARCs in their clinic and 12 were teaching these procedures to residents. LARC integration into IM clinics occurred in 3 models: (1) a dedicated procedure or women’s health clinic, (2) integration into existing IM clinical sessions, or (3) an interdisciplinary IM and family medicine or gynecology clinic. Balancing clinical and educational priorities was a common theme, with chosen LARC model(s) reflecting the desired priority balance at a given institution. Most programs incorporated a mix of educational modalities, with opportunities based upon resident interest and desired educational goals. Facilitators and barriers related to clinical (equipment, workflow), educational (curriculum, outcomes), or process considerations (procedural volume, credentialing). Participants reported that support from multiple stakeholders including patients, residents, leadership, and other departments was necessary for success. Conclusion The model for integration of LARCs into IM clinics and resident education depends upon the clinical resources, patient needs, stakeholder support, and educational goals of the program.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11606-021-06832-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8606354</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2524358229</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1cfb153af9683d99b59db40e452e1783acc0695bac04ad8669cd577f633ea3593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhSMEotPCH2CBLLFh0YAfcWKzqASjFkYq4r22HPumdZXYg-1U6i_h7-LMlPJYsLKl-51z7XOq6gnBLwjG3ctESIvbGlNS41YwWrN71YpwymvSyO5-tcJCNLXoWHNQHaZ0hTFhlIqH1QFjkksh2Kr6sQ4-R21gm901oI8xGLBzhIScRxufIXo9ovdgnXEe0Hp03pmEtLfoMyRnwWd0amejswv-FdLo06xHl_XO7Uue7Q0KA9pM2xGmwu6wYpcvg03H6I2O0UEst8XwTBu304aYHlUPBj0meHx7HlXfzk6_rt_V5x_ebtavz2vTdE2uiRl6wpkeZAnAStlzafsGQ8MpkE4wbQxuJe-1wY22om2lsbzrhpYx0IxLdlSd7H23cz-BNbCkMaptdJOONypop_6eeHepLsK1EiV6xpti8PzWIIbvM6SsJpcMjKP2EOakKKcN44LSZdezf9CrMC_5Fqot5ZRSCS4U3VMmhpQiDHePIVgtvat976r0rna9K1ZET__8xp3kV9EFYHsglZG_gPh7939sfwJsfbu_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2600110010</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Casas, Rachel S. ; Prifti, Christine A. ; Bachorik, Alexandra E. ; Stuckey, Heather ; Sobota, Mindy ; Chuang, Cynthia H. ; Weisman, Carol S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Casas, Rachel S. ; Prifti, Christine A. ; Bachorik, Alexandra E. ; Stuckey, Heather ; Sobota, Mindy ; Chuang, Cynthia H. ; Weisman, Carol S.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response, internists are integrating LARCs into IM practices and residency training. Objective This study examines the approaches, facilitators, and barriers reported by IM faculty to incorporating LARCs into IM clinics and resident education. Design We interviewed faculty who were prior or current LARC providers and/or teachers in 15 IM departments nationally. Each had implemented or attempted to implement LARC training for residents in their IM practice. Semi-structured interviews were used. Participants Eligible participants were a convenience sample of clinicians identified as key informants at each institution. Approach We used inductive thematic coding analysis to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. Key Results Fourteen respondents currently offered LARCs in their clinic and 12 were teaching these procedures to residents. LARC integration into IM clinics occurred in 3 models: (1) a dedicated procedure or women’s health clinic, (2) integration into existing IM clinical sessions, or (3) an interdisciplinary IM and family medicine or gynecology clinic. Balancing clinical and educational priorities was a common theme, with chosen LARC model(s) reflecting the desired priority balance at a given institution. Most programs incorporated a mix of educational modalities, with opportunities based upon resident interest and desired educational goals. Facilitators and barriers related to clinical (equipment, workflow), educational (curriculum, outcomes), or process considerations (procedural volume, credentialing). Participants reported that support from multiple stakeholders including patients, residents, leadership, and other departments was necessary for success. Conclusion The model for integration of LARCs into IM clinics and resident education depends upon the clinical resources, patient needs, stakeholder support, and educational goals of the program.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06832-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33959883</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Clinics ; Contraceptives ; Curricula ; Education ; Gynecology ; Integration ; Internal Medicine ; Intrauterine devices ; IUD ; Leadership ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Original Research ; Patients ; Qualitative research ; Training ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2021-11, Vol.36 (11), p.3346-3352</ispartof><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2021</rights><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1cfb153af9683d99b59db40e452e1783acc0695bac04ad8669cd577f633ea3593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1cfb153af9683d99b59db40e452e1783acc0695bac04ad8669cd577f633ea3593</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2848-3107</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/PMC8606354/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606354/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,883,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302,53774,53776</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33959883$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Casas, Rachel S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prifti, Christine A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bachorik, Alexandra E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stuckey, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sobota, Mindy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuang, Cynthia H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weisman, Carol S.</creatorcontrib><title>Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J GEN INTERN MED</addtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>Background Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response, internists are integrating LARCs into IM practices and residency training. Objective This study examines the approaches, facilitators, and barriers reported by IM faculty to incorporating LARCs into IM clinics and resident education. Design We interviewed faculty who were prior or current LARC providers and/or teachers in 15 IM departments nationally. Each had implemented or attempted to implement LARC training for residents in their IM practice. Semi-structured interviews were used. Participants Eligible participants were a convenience sample of clinicians identified as key informants at each institution. Approach We used inductive thematic coding analysis to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. Key Results Fourteen respondents currently offered LARCs in their clinic and 12 were teaching these procedures to residents. LARC integration into IM clinics occurred in 3 models: (1) a dedicated procedure or women’s health clinic, (2) integration into existing IM clinical sessions, or (3) an interdisciplinary IM and family medicine or gynecology clinic. Balancing clinical and educational priorities was a common theme, with chosen LARC model(s) reflecting the desired priority balance at a given institution. Most programs incorporated a mix of educational modalities, with opportunities based upon resident interest and desired educational goals. Facilitators and barriers related to clinical (equipment, workflow), educational (curriculum, outcomes), or process considerations (procedural volume, credentialing). Participants reported that support from multiple stakeholders including patients, residents, leadership, and other departments was necessary for success. Conclusion The model for integration of LARCs into IM clinics and resident education depends upon the clinical resources, patient needs, stakeholder support, and educational goals of the program.</description><subject>Clinics</subject><subject>Contraceptives</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Integration</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Intrauterine devices</subject><subject>IUD</subject><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><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>eNp9kUtv1DAUhSMEotPCH2CBLLFh0YAfcWKzqASjFkYq4r22HPumdZXYg-1U6i_h7-LMlPJYsLKl-51z7XOq6gnBLwjG3ctESIvbGlNS41YwWrN71YpwymvSyO5-tcJCNLXoWHNQHaZ0hTFhlIqH1QFjkksh2Kr6sQ4-R21gm901oI8xGLBzhIScRxufIXo9ovdgnXEe0Hp03pmEtLfoMyRnwWd0amejswv-FdLo06xHl_XO7Uue7Q0KA9pM2xGmwu6wYpcvg03H6I2O0UEst8XwTBu304aYHlUPBj0meHx7HlXfzk6_rt_V5x_ebtavz2vTdE2uiRl6wpkeZAnAStlzafsGQ8MpkE4wbQxuJe-1wY22om2lsbzrhpYx0IxLdlSd7H23cz-BNbCkMaptdJOONypop_6eeHepLsK1EiV6xpti8PzWIIbvM6SsJpcMjKP2EOakKKcN44LSZdezf9CrMC_5Fqot5ZRSCS4U3VMmhpQiDHePIVgtvat976r0rna9K1ZET__8xp3kV9EFYHsglZG_gPh7939sfwJsfbu_</recordid><startdate>20211101</startdate><enddate>20211101</enddate><creator>Casas, Rachel S.</creator><creator>Prifti, Christine A.</creator><creator>Bachorik, Alexandra E.</creator><creator>Stuckey, Heather</creator><creator>Sobota, Mindy</creator><creator>Chuang, Cynthia H.</creator><creator>Weisman, Carol S.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2848-3107</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211101</creationdate><title>Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators</title><author>Casas, Rachel S. ; Prifti, Christine A. ; Bachorik, Alexandra E. ; Stuckey, Heather ; Sobota, Mindy ; Chuang, Cynthia H. ; Weisman, Carol S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1cfb153af9683d99b59db40e452e1783acc0695bac04ad8669cd577f633ea3593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Clinics</topic><topic>Contraceptives</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Integration</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Intrauterine devices</topic><topic>IUD</topic><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Casas, Rachel S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prifti, Christine A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bachorik, Alexandra E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stuckey, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sobota, Mindy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuang, Cynthia H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weisman, Carol S.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</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>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>Engineering Research Database</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>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</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 Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Casas, Rachel S.</au><au>Prifti, Christine A.</au><au>Bachorik, Alexandra E.</au><au>Stuckey, Heather</au><au>Sobota, Mindy</au><au>Chuang, Cynthia H.</au><au>Weisman, Carol S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><stitle>J GEN INTERN MED</stitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>2021-11-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3346</spage><epage>3352</epage><pages>3346-3352</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>Background Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants are highly effective and increasingly popular. Internal Medicine (IM) clinics and residency curricula do not routinely include LARCs, which can limit patient access to these methods. In response, internists are integrating LARCs into IM practices and residency training. Objective This study examines the approaches, facilitators, and barriers reported by IM faculty to incorporating LARCs into IM clinics and resident education. Design We interviewed faculty who were prior or current LARC providers and/or teachers in 15 IM departments nationally. Each had implemented or attempted to implement LARC training for residents in their IM practice. Semi-structured interviews were used. Participants Eligible participants were a convenience sample of clinicians identified as key informants at each institution. Approach We used inductive thematic coding analysis to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. Key Results Fourteen respondents currently offered LARCs in their clinic and 12 were teaching these procedures to residents. LARC integration into IM clinics occurred in 3 models: (1) a dedicated procedure or women’s health clinic, (2) integration into existing IM clinical sessions, or (3) an interdisciplinary IM and family medicine or gynecology clinic. Balancing clinical and educational priorities was a common theme, with chosen LARC model(s) reflecting the desired priority balance at a given institution. Most programs incorporated a mix of educational modalities, with opportunities based upon resident interest and desired educational goals. Facilitators and barriers related to clinical (equipment, workflow), educational (curriculum, outcomes), or process considerations (procedural volume, credentialing). Participants reported that support from multiple stakeholders including patients, residents, leadership, and other departments was necessary for success. Conclusion The model for integration of LARCs into IM clinics and resident education depends upon the clinical resources, patient needs, stakeholder support, and educational goals of the program.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>33959883</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11606-021-06832-3</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2848-3107</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0884-8734
ispartof Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2021-11, Vol.36 (11), p.3346-3352
issn 0884-8734
1525-1497
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8606354
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Clinics
Contraceptives
Curricula
Education
Gynecology
Integration
Internal Medicine
Intrauterine devices
IUD
Leadership
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Research
Patients
Qualitative research
Training
Workflow
title Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T07%3A33%3A46IST&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=Contraceptive%20Procedures%20in%20Internal%20Medicine%20Clinics%20and%20Resident%20Education:%20a%20Qualitative%20Study%20of%20Implementation%20Methods,%20Barriers,%20and%20Facilitators&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=Casas,%20Rachel%20S.&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3346&rft.epage=3352&rft.pages=3346-3352&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11606-021-06832-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2524358229%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=2600110010&rft_id=info:pmid/33959883&rfr_iscdi=true