Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract Background Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening. Methods We co...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2022-05, Vol.9 (5), p.ofac111-ofac111 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | ofac111 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | ofac111 |
container_title | Open Forum Infectious Diseases |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Daneman, Nick Lee, Samantha Bai, Heming Bell, Chaim M Bronskill, Susan E Campitelli, Michael A Dobell, Gail Fu, Longdi Garber, Gary Ivers, Noah Kumar, Matthew Lam, Jonathan M C Langford, Bradley Laur, Celia Morris, Andrew M Mulhall, Cara L Pinto, Ruxandra Saxena, Farah E Schwartz, Kevin L Brown, Kevin A |
description | Abstract
Background
Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.
Methods
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.
Results
The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10–2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24–2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06–2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33–3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14–1.43], P 28 000 long-term care residents at 450 facilities, the use of enhanced email nudging strategies was associated with modest improvements in opening of antibiotic audit and feedback reports. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ofid/ofac111 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8982784</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A775974852</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/ofid/ofac111</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A775974852</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-6665413af34b736e8124799fb3f4e3d7d02193e3a75fabd082105352647e652d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EolXpjTPyDQ5s8VdihwNSWNEPqaKoKmfLsSdbgxMHO1mJ_nq82qUqF2RpPLKfeT3jF6HXlJxR0vAPsfeuBGMppc_QMeNMrVRTyedP8iN0mvMPQgilpCKyeYmOeMUbJmp6jB4-w73Z-phMwF8Xt4GM54ivhinFLeB2cX7GZnT4HMB1xv7EtzDFNOObCUY_bnA7xF0cZ9_5OHuLvyXINvkOUv6IW3xbiuPgH8DhdRznFEMo6V3yJrxCL3oTMpwe9hP0_fzL3fpydX1zcbVur1dWKD6v6rquBOWm56KTvAZFmZBN03e8F8CddITRhgM3supN54hiZUxesVpIqCvm-An6tNedlm4AZ6G0YYKekh9M-q2j8frfm9Hf603catUoJpUoAu8OAin-WiDPevDZQghmhLhkXZ5S5aMFkQU926MbE0D7sY9F0ZblYPA2jtD7ct5KWTVSqIqVgvf7Aptizgn6x74o0TuL9c5ifbC44G-ezvII_zW0AG_3QFym_0v9AfTdsW4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2648895407</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Daneman, Nick ; Lee, Samantha ; Bai, Heming ; Bell, Chaim M ; Bronskill, Susan E ; Campitelli, Michael A ; Dobell, Gail ; Fu, Longdi ; Garber, Gary ; Ivers, Noah ; Kumar, Matthew ; Lam, Jonathan M C ; Langford, Bradley ; Laur, Celia ; Morris, Andrew M ; Mulhall, Cara L ; Pinto, Ruxandra ; Saxena, Farah E ; Schwartz, Kevin L ; Brown, Kevin A</creator><creatorcontrib>Daneman, Nick ; Lee, Samantha ; Bai, Heming ; Bell, Chaim M ; Bronskill, Susan E ; Campitelli, Michael A ; Dobell, Gail ; Fu, Longdi ; Garber, Gary ; Ivers, Noah ; Kumar, Matthew ; Lam, Jonathan M C ; Langford, Bradley ; Laur, Celia ; Morris, Andrew M ; Mulhall, Cara L ; Pinto, Ruxandra ; Saxena, Farah E ; Schwartz, Kevin L ; Brown, Kevin A</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Background
Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.
Methods
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.
Results
The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10–2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24–2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06–2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33–3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14–1.43], P < .001).
Conclusions
Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback.
Clinical Trials Registration
NCT04187742.
In this randomized controlled trial of 421 physicians caring for >28 000 long-term care residents at 450 facilities, the use of enhanced email nudging strategies was associated with modest improvements in opening of antibiotic audit and feedback reports.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2328-8957</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2328-8957</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofac111</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35392461</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Antibiotics ; Clinical trials ; Long-term care of the sick ; Major ; Prescription writing</subject><ispartof>Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2022-05, Vol.9 (5), p.ofac111-ofac111</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Oxford University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-6665413af34b736e8124799fb3f4e3d7d02193e3a75fabd082105352647e652d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-6665413af34b736e8124799fb3f4e3d7d02193e3a75fabd082105352647e652d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8982784/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8982784/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1604,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35392461$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Daneman, Nick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Samantha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, Heming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Chaim M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronskill, Susan E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campitelli, Michael A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dobell, Gail</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Longdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garber, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ivers, Noah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lam, Jonathan M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langford, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laur, Celia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Andrew M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulhall, Cara L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinto, Ruxandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saxena, Farah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kevin L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Kevin A</creatorcontrib><title>Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial</title><title>Open Forum Infectious Diseases</title><addtitle>Open Forum Infect Dis</addtitle><description>Abstract
Background
Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.
Methods
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.
Results
The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10–2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24–2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06–2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33–3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14–1.43], P < .001).
Conclusions
Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback.
Clinical Trials Registration
NCT04187742.
In this randomized controlled trial of 421 physicians caring for >28 000 long-term care residents at 450 facilities, the use of enhanced email nudging strategies was associated with modest improvements in opening of antibiotic audit and feedback reports.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Long-term care of the sick</subject><subject>Major</subject><subject>Prescription writing</subject><issn>2328-8957</issn><issn>2328-8957</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EolXpjTPyDQ5s8VdihwNSWNEPqaKoKmfLsSdbgxMHO1mJ_nq82qUqF2RpPLKfeT3jF6HXlJxR0vAPsfeuBGMppc_QMeNMrVRTyedP8iN0mvMPQgilpCKyeYmOeMUbJmp6jB4-w73Z-phMwF8Xt4GM54ivhinFLeB2cX7GZnT4HMB1xv7EtzDFNOObCUY_bnA7xF0cZ9_5OHuLvyXINvkOUv6IW3xbiuPgH8DhdRznFEMo6V3yJrxCL3oTMpwe9hP0_fzL3fpydX1zcbVur1dWKD6v6rquBOWm56KTvAZFmZBN03e8F8CddITRhgM3supN54hiZUxesVpIqCvm-An6tNedlm4AZ6G0YYKekh9M-q2j8frfm9Hf603catUoJpUoAu8OAin-WiDPevDZQghmhLhkXZ5S5aMFkQU926MbE0D7sY9F0ZblYPA2jtD7ct5KWTVSqIqVgvf7Aptizgn6x74o0TuL9c5ifbC44G-ezvII_zW0AG_3QFym_0v9AfTdsW4</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Daneman, Nick</creator><creator>Lee, Samantha</creator><creator>Bai, Heming</creator><creator>Bell, Chaim M</creator><creator>Bronskill, Susan E</creator><creator>Campitelli, Michael A</creator><creator>Dobell, Gail</creator><creator>Fu, Longdi</creator><creator>Garber, Gary</creator><creator>Ivers, Noah</creator><creator>Kumar, Matthew</creator><creator>Lam, Jonathan M C</creator><creator>Langford, Bradley</creator><creator>Laur, Celia</creator><creator>Morris, Andrew M</creator><creator>Mulhall, Cara L</creator><creator>Pinto, Ruxandra</creator><creator>Saxena, Farah E</creator><creator>Schwartz, Kevin L</creator><creator>Brown, Kevin A</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial</title><author>Daneman, Nick ; Lee, Samantha ; Bai, Heming ; Bell, Chaim M ; Bronskill, Susan E ; Campitelli, Michael A ; Dobell, Gail ; Fu, Longdi ; Garber, Gary ; Ivers, Noah ; Kumar, Matthew ; Lam, Jonathan M C ; Langford, Bradley ; Laur, Celia ; Morris, Andrew M ; Mulhall, Cara L ; Pinto, Ruxandra ; Saxena, Farah E ; Schwartz, Kevin L ; Brown, Kevin A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-6665413af34b736e8124799fb3f4e3d7d02193e3a75fabd082105352647e652d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Long-term care of the sick</topic><topic>Major</topic><topic>Prescription writing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Daneman, Nick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Samantha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, Heming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bell, Chaim M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronskill, Susan E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campitelli, Michael A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dobell, Gail</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Longdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garber, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ivers, Noah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lam, Jonathan M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langford, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laur, Celia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Andrew M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulhall, Cara L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinto, Ruxandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saxena, Farah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kevin L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Kevin A</creatorcontrib><collection>Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Open Forum Infectious Diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Daneman, Nick</au><au>Lee, Samantha</au><au>Bai, Heming</au><au>Bell, Chaim M</au><au>Bronskill, Susan E</au><au>Campitelli, Michael A</au><au>Dobell, Gail</au><au>Fu, Longdi</au><au>Garber, Gary</au><au>Ivers, Noah</au><au>Kumar, Matthew</au><au>Lam, Jonathan M C</au><au>Langford, Bradley</au><au>Laur, Celia</au><au>Morris, Andrew M</au><au>Mulhall, Cara L</au><au>Pinto, Ruxandra</au><au>Saxena, Farah E</au><au>Schwartz, Kevin L</au><au>Brown, Kevin A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial</atitle><jtitle>Open Forum Infectious Diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Open Forum Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>ofac111</spage><epage>ofac111</epage><pages>ofac111-ofac111</pages><issn>2328-8957</issn><eissn>2328-8957</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Background
Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening.
Methods
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions.
Results
The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10–2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24–2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06–2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33–3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14–1.43], P < .001).
Conclusions
Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback.
Clinical Trials Registration
NCT04187742.
In this randomized controlled trial of 421 physicians caring for >28 000 long-term care residents at 450 facilities, the use of enhanced email nudging strategies was associated with modest improvements in opening of antibiotic audit and feedback reports.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>35392461</pmid><doi>10.1093/ofid/ofac111</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2328-8957 |
ispartof | Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2022-05, Vol.9 (5), p.ofac111-ofac111 |
issn | 2328-8957 2328-8957 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8982784 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Analysis Antibiotics Clinical trials Long-term care of the sick Major Prescription writing |
title | Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T01%3A11%3A25IST&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=Behavioral%20Nudges%20to%20Improve%20Audit%20and%20Feedback%20Report%20Opening%20Among%20Antibiotic%20Prescribers:%20A%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Open%20Forum%20Infectious%20Diseases&rft.au=Daneman,%20Nick&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=ofac111&rft.epage=ofac111&rft.pages=ofac111-ofac111&rft.issn=2328-8957&rft.eissn=2328-8957&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ofid/ofac111&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA775974852%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=2648895407&rft_id=info:pmid/35392461&rft_galeid=A775974852&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ofid/ofac111&rfr_iscdi=true |