Accuracy of Consumer‐marketed smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices: A laboratory validation study
Background Although alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol‐impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established. Methods In a within‐subjects laboratory study, we administered weight‐based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research clinical and experimental research, 2021-05, Vol.45 (5), p.1091-1099 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1099 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1091 |
| container_title | Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research |
| container_volume | 45 |
| creator | Delgado, Mucio Kit Shofer, Frances Wetherill, Reagan Curtis, Brenda Hemmons, Jessica Spencer, Evan Branas, Charles Wiebe, Douglas J. Kranzler, Henry R. |
| description | Background
Although alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol‐impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established.
Methods
In a within‐subjects laboratory study, we administered weight‐based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy, moderate drinkers aiming to achieve a target peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10%. We obtained a peak phlebotomy BAC and measured breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) with a police‐grade device (Intoxilyzer 240) and two randomly ordered series of 3 consumer smartphone‐paired devices (6 total devices) with measurements every 20 min until the BrAC reached 0.01%, though the BACtrack Mobile Pro and police‐grade device were consistently more accurate than the Drinkmate and Evoc. Compared with the police‐grade device measurements, the BACtrack Mobile Pro readings were consistently higher, the BACtrack Vio and Alcohoot measurements similar, and the Floome, Drinkmake, and Evoc consistently lower. The BACtrack Mobile Pro and Alcohoot were most sensitive in detecting BAC driving limit thresholds, while the Drinkmate and Evoc devices failed to detect BAC limit thresholds more than 50% of the time relative to the police‐grade device.
Conclusions
The accuracy of smartphone‐paired devices varied widely in this laboratory study of healthy participants. Although some devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others underestimated BAC, creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users into thinking that they are fit to drive.
This laboratory study of healthy participants found the accuracy of consumer smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices varied widely relative to venous blood alcohol content (BAC) and BAC estimated by a police grade breath testing device. Although some smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others significantly underestimated BAC creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users to think that |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/acer.14597 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9359437</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2528063517</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4487-b7148348b6021b9a206c3627c5a23d4ae329df0ce2721c823a0b80948559aecb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kd9qFDEUxoNY7Hb1xgeQgDdSmJo_M5mMF4VlqVooCKLX4UzmbDc1O9kmMytz10foM_okZt1a1Atzk_Dlx8f5zkfIS87OeD5vwWI842XV1E_IjFeSFUzU9VMyY1ksFGP6mJykdMMYK7VSz8ixlI1SQssZuV1YO0awEw0rugx9GjcYf9zdbyB-wwE7mvJr2K5Dj1ndgotZA2_DOnjaRoRhTQdMg-uvaYc7ZzG9owvqoQ0RhhAnugPvOhhc6Gkaxm56To5W4BO-eLjn5Ov7iy_Lj8XVpw-Xy8VVYctS10Vb81LLUreKCd42IJiyUonaViBkVwJK0XQrZlHUglstJLBWs6bUVdUA2lbOyfnBdzu2G-ws9kMEb7bR5USTCeDM3z-9W5vrsDONrJpS1tngzYNBDLdjzmg2Lln0HnoMYzKiEnlQrfLG5-T1P-hNGGOf4-0pzZSs-N7w9EDZGFKKuHochjOzb9LsmzS_mszwqz_Hf0R_V5cBfgC-O4_Tf6zMYnnx-WD6E5WIrNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2528063517</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of Consumer‐marketed smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices: A laboratory validation study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Delgado, Mucio Kit ; Shofer, Frances ; Wetherill, Reagan ; Curtis, Brenda ; Hemmons, Jessica ; Spencer, Evan ; Branas, Charles ; Wiebe, Douglas J. ; Kranzler, Henry R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Delgado, Mucio Kit ; Shofer, Frances ; Wetherill, Reagan ; Curtis, Brenda ; Hemmons, Jessica ; Spencer, Evan ; Branas, Charles ; Wiebe, Douglas J. ; Kranzler, Henry R.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Although alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol‐impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established.
Methods
In a within‐subjects laboratory study, we administered weight‐based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy, moderate drinkers aiming to achieve a target peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10%. We obtained a peak phlebotomy BAC and measured breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) with a police‐grade device (Intoxilyzer 240) and two randomly ordered series of 3 consumer smartphone‐paired devices (6 total devices) with measurements every 20 min until the BrAC reached <0.02% on the police device. Ten participants tested the first 3 devices, and the other 10 participants tested the other 3 devices. We measured mean paired differences in BrAC with 95% confidence intervals between the police‐grade device and consumer devices.
Results
The enrolled sample (N = 20) included 11 females; 15 white, 3 Asian, and 2 Black participants; with a mean age of 27 and mean BMI of 24.6. Peak BACs ranged from 0.06–0.14%. All 7 devices underestimated BAC by >0.01%, though the BACtrack Mobile Pro and police‐grade device were consistently more accurate than the Drinkmate and Evoc. Compared with the police‐grade device measurements, the BACtrack Mobile Pro readings were consistently higher, the BACtrack Vio and Alcohoot measurements similar, and the Floome, Drinkmake, and Evoc consistently lower. The BACtrack Mobile Pro and Alcohoot were most sensitive in detecting BAC driving limit thresholds, while the Drinkmate and Evoc devices failed to detect BAC limit thresholds more than 50% of the time relative to the police‐grade device.
Conclusions
The accuracy of smartphone‐paired devices varied widely in this laboratory study of healthy participants. Although some devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others underestimated BAC, creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users into thinking that they are fit to drive.
This laboratory study of healthy participants found the accuracy of consumer smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices varied widely relative to venous blood alcohol content (BAC) and BAC estimated by a police grade breath testing device. Although some smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others significantly underestimated BAC creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users to think that they are fit to drive.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0145-6008</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1530-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-0277</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/acer.14597</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33966283</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Adult ; Alcohol ; alcohol breath test ; alcohol consumption ; Alcohol use ; blood alcohol concentration ; Blood Alcohol Content ; Blood levels ; Breath tests ; Breath Tests - instrumentation ; Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing ; Driving ability ; Ethanol ; Female ; Humans ; Laboratories ; Male ; Reproducibility of Results ; Smartphone ; Smartphones ; Validation studies ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2021-05, Vol.45 (5), p.1091-1099</ispartof><rights>2021 by the Research Society on Alcoholism</rights><rights>2021 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4487-b7148348b6021b9a206c3627c5a23d4ae329df0ce2721c823a0b80948559aecb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4487-b7148348b6021b9a206c3627c5a23d4ae329df0ce2721c823a0b80948559aecb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2248-8401 ; 0000-0002-2511-3322 ; 0000-0002-1018-0450</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Facer.14597$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Facer.14597$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33966283$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Delgado, Mucio Kit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shofer, Frances</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wetherill, Reagan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curtis, Brenda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemmons, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Evan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branas, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiebe, Douglas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kranzler, Henry R.</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of Consumer‐marketed smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices: A laboratory validation study</title><title>Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research</title><addtitle>Alcohol Clin Exp Res</addtitle><description>Background
Although alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol‐impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established.
Methods
In a within‐subjects laboratory study, we administered weight‐based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy, moderate drinkers aiming to achieve a target peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10%. We obtained a peak phlebotomy BAC and measured breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) with a police‐grade device (Intoxilyzer 240) and two randomly ordered series of 3 consumer smartphone‐paired devices (6 total devices) with measurements every 20 min until the BrAC reached <0.02% on the police device. Ten participants tested the first 3 devices, and the other 10 participants tested the other 3 devices. We measured mean paired differences in BrAC with 95% confidence intervals between the police‐grade device and consumer devices.
Results
The enrolled sample (N = 20) included 11 females; 15 white, 3 Asian, and 2 Black participants; with a mean age of 27 and mean BMI of 24.6. Peak BACs ranged from 0.06–0.14%. All 7 devices underestimated BAC by >0.01%, though the BACtrack Mobile Pro and police‐grade device were consistently more accurate than the Drinkmate and Evoc. Compared with the police‐grade device measurements, the BACtrack Mobile Pro readings were consistently higher, the BACtrack Vio and Alcohoot measurements similar, and the Floome, Drinkmake, and Evoc consistently lower. The BACtrack Mobile Pro and Alcohoot were most sensitive in detecting BAC driving limit thresholds, while the Drinkmate and Evoc devices failed to detect BAC limit thresholds more than 50% of the time relative to the police‐grade device.
Conclusions
The accuracy of smartphone‐paired devices varied widely in this laboratory study of healthy participants. Although some devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others underestimated BAC, creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users into thinking that they are fit to drive.
This laboratory study of healthy participants found the accuracy of consumer smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices varied widely relative to venous blood alcohol content (BAC) and BAC estimated by a police grade breath testing device. Although some smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others significantly underestimated BAC creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users to think that they are fit to drive.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Alcohol</subject><subject>alcohol breath test</subject><subject>alcohol consumption</subject><subject>Alcohol use</subject><subject>blood alcohol concentration</subject><subject>Blood Alcohol Content</subject><subject>Blood levels</subject><subject>Breath tests</subject><subject>Breath Tests - instrumentation</subject><subject>Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing</subject><subject>Driving ability</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Smartphone</subject><subject>Smartphones</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0145-6008</issn><issn>1530-0277</issn><issn>1530-0277</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kd9qFDEUxoNY7Hb1xgeQgDdSmJo_M5mMF4VlqVooCKLX4UzmbDc1O9kmMytz10foM_okZt1a1Atzk_Dlx8f5zkfIS87OeD5vwWI842XV1E_IjFeSFUzU9VMyY1ksFGP6mJykdMMYK7VSz8ixlI1SQssZuV1YO0awEw0rugx9GjcYf9zdbyB-wwE7mvJr2K5Dj1ndgotZA2_DOnjaRoRhTQdMg-uvaYc7ZzG9owvqoQ0RhhAnugPvOhhc6Gkaxm56To5W4BO-eLjn5Ov7iy_Lj8XVpw-Xy8VVYctS10Vb81LLUreKCd42IJiyUonaViBkVwJK0XQrZlHUglstJLBWs6bUVdUA2lbOyfnBdzu2G-ws9kMEb7bR5USTCeDM3z-9W5vrsDONrJpS1tngzYNBDLdjzmg2Lln0HnoMYzKiEnlQrfLG5-T1P-hNGGOf4-0pzZSs-N7w9EDZGFKKuHochjOzb9LsmzS_mszwqz_Hf0R_V5cBfgC-O4_Tf6zMYnnx-WD6E5WIrNA</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Delgado, Mucio Kit</creator><creator>Shofer, Frances</creator><creator>Wetherill, Reagan</creator><creator>Curtis, Brenda</creator><creator>Hemmons, Jessica</creator><creator>Spencer, Evan</creator><creator>Branas, Charles</creator><creator>Wiebe, Douglas J.</creator><creator>Kranzler, Henry R.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</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>7TK</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2248-8401</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2511-3322</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1018-0450</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>Accuracy of Consumer‐marketed smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices: A laboratory validation study</title><author>Delgado, Mucio Kit ; Shofer, Frances ; Wetherill, Reagan ; Curtis, Brenda ; Hemmons, Jessica ; Spencer, Evan ; Branas, Charles ; Wiebe, Douglas J. ; Kranzler, Henry R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4487-b7148348b6021b9a206c3627c5a23d4ae329df0ce2721c823a0b80948559aecb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Alcohol</topic><topic>alcohol breath test</topic><topic>alcohol consumption</topic><topic>Alcohol use</topic><topic>blood alcohol concentration</topic><topic>Blood Alcohol Content</topic><topic>Blood levels</topic><topic>Breath tests</topic><topic>Breath Tests - instrumentation</topic><topic>Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing</topic><topic>Driving ability</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Smartphone</topic><topic>Smartphones</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Delgado, Mucio Kit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shofer, Frances</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wetherill, Reagan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curtis, Brenda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemmons, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Evan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branas, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiebe, Douglas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kranzler, Henry R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Delgado, Mucio Kit</au><au>Shofer, Frances</au><au>Wetherill, Reagan</au><au>Curtis, Brenda</au><au>Hemmons, Jessica</au><au>Spencer, Evan</au><au>Branas, Charles</au><au>Wiebe, Douglas J.</au><au>Kranzler, Henry R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of Consumer‐marketed smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices: A laboratory validation study</atitle><jtitle>Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research</jtitle><addtitle>Alcohol Clin Exp Res</addtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1091</spage><epage>1099</epage><pages>1091-1099</pages><issn>0145-6008</issn><issn>1530-0277</issn><eissn>1530-0277</eissn><abstract>Background
Although alcohol breath testing devices that pair with smartphones are promoted for the prevention of alcohol‐impaired driving, their accuracy has not been established.
Methods
In a within‐subjects laboratory study, we administered weight‐based doses of ethanol to two groups of 10 healthy, moderate drinkers aiming to achieve a target peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10%. We obtained a peak phlebotomy BAC and measured breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) with a police‐grade device (Intoxilyzer 240) and two randomly ordered series of 3 consumer smartphone‐paired devices (6 total devices) with measurements every 20 min until the BrAC reached <0.02% on the police device. Ten participants tested the first 3 devices, and the other 10 participants tested the other 3 devices. We measured mean paired differences in BrAC with 95% confidence intervals between the police‐grade device and consumer devices.
Results
The enrolled sample (N = 20) included 11 females; 15 white, 3 Asian, and 2 Black participants; with a mean age of 27 and mean BMI of 24.6. Peak BACs ranged from 0.06–0.14%. All 7 devices underestimated BAC by >0.01%, though the BACtrack Mobile Pro and police‐grade device were consistently more accurate than the Drinkmate and Evoc. Compared with the police‐grade device measurements, the BACtrack Mobile Pro readings were consistently higher, the BACtrack Vio and Alcohoot measurements similar, and the Floome, Drinkmake, and Evoc consistently lower. The BACtrack Mobile Pro and Alcohoot were most sensitive in detecting BAC driving limit thresholds, while the Drinkmate and Evoc devices failed to detect BAC limit thresholds more than 50% of the time relative to the police‐grade device.
Conclusions
The accuracy of smartphone‐paired devices varied widely in this laboratory study of healthy participants. Although some devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others underestimated BAC, creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users into thinking that they are fit to drive.
This laboratory study of healthy participants found the accuracy of consumer smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices varied widely relative to venous blood alcohol content (BAC) and BAC estimated by a police grade breath testing device. Although some smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices are suitable for clinical and research purposes, others significantly underestimated BAC creating the potential to mislead intoxicated users to think that they are fit to drive.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33966283</pmid><doi>10.1111/acer.14597</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2248-8401</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2511-3322</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1018-0450</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0145-6008 |
| ispartof | Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2021-05, Vol.45 (5), p.1091-1099 |
| issn | 0145-6008 1530-0277 1530-0277 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9359437 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Accuracy Adult Alcohol alcohol breath test alcohol consumption Alcohol use blood alcohol concentration Blood Alcohol Content Blood levels Breath tests Breath Tests - instrumentation Direct-To-Consumer Screening and Testing Driving ability Ethanol Female Humans Laboratories Male Reproducibility of Results Smartphone Smartphones Validation studies Young Adult |
| title | Accuracy of Consumer‐marketed smartphone‐paired alcohol breath testing devices: A laboratory validation study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T08%3A25%3A07IST&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=Accuracy%20of%20Consumer%E2%80%90marketed%20smartphone%E2%80%90paired%20alcohol%20breath%20testing%20devices:%20A%20laboratory%20validation%20study&rft.jtitle=Alcoholism,%20clinical%20and%20experimental%20research&rft.au=Delgado,%20Mucio%20Kit&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1091&rft.epage=1099&rft.pages=1091-1099&rft.issn=0145-6008&rft.eissn=1530-0277&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/acer.14597&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2528063517%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=2528063517&rft_id=info:pmid/33966283&rfr_iscdi=true |