Loading…

Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis

Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using Et...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC medical informatics and decision making 2021-05, Vol.21 (1), p.169-169, Article 169
Main Authors: Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco, Rosenbaum, Sarah, Rada, Gabriel, Flottorp, Signe, Moberg, Jenny, Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393
container_end_page 169
container_issue 1
container_start_page 169
container_title BMC medical informatics and decision making
container_volume 21
creator Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco
Rosenbaum, Sarah
Rada, Gabriel
Flottorp, Signe
Moberg, Jenny
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
description Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12911-021-01532-8
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_41ccbe03b60f489bbf1c1a581c22bcdc</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_41ccbe03b60f489bbf1c1a581c22bcdc</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2532260774</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkk9v1DAQxSMEoqXwBTggSxwoh4D_JbF7QELtApUqcaFny55MWi_ZeGs7W_rt8e6WquVg2fL7zdN4_KrqLaOfGFPt58S4ZqymvCzWCF6rZ9Uhkx2vWy2754_OB9WrlJaUsk6J5mV1ICQVRROHVX-ZMKYPBP-sMXqcABO59fma2In4KWO0kP0GyWLj-61KciBnCD75MJFjv8hnH8kQ7QpvQ_x9Qiy5me3os90V2cmOd8mn19WLwY4J39zvR9Xlt8Wv0x_1xc_v56dfL2qQus21ts6Blsr1rpVowXHqEEAgcNcI0QqrgTJ0FEF0TUFADQMwR1VXJiG0OKrO9759sEuzjn5l450J1pvdRYhXxsbsYUQjGYBDKlxLB6m0cwMDZhvFgHMHPRSvL3uv9exW2ANOOdrxielTZfLX5ipsjGKy1aotBsf3BjHczJiyWfkEOI52wjAnw8uP8ZZ2nSzo-__QZZhjGd6WkkJK2WlaKL6nIIaUIg4PzTBqtoEw-0CYEgizC4RRpejd42c8lPxLgPgLguezFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2543444790</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco ; Rosenbaum, Sarah ; Rada, Gabriel ; Flottorp, Signe ; Moberg, Jenny ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><creatorcontrib>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco ; Rosenbaum, Sarah ; Rada, Gabriel ; Flottorp, Signe ; Moberg, Jenny ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><description>Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6947</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12911-021-01532-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34034723</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central</publisher><subject>Audiences ; Clinical decision support ; Content analysis ; Criteria ; Decision analysis ; Decision making ; Electronic mail ; Ethics ; Evidence-based health care ; GRADE approach ; Health informatics ; Interviews ; Medical research ; Public health ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative research ; Research methodology ; Translating ; User experience ; Working groups</subject><ispartof>BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021-05, Vol.21 (1), p.169-169, Article 169</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is licensed 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>The Author(s) 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393</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/PMC8146986/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2543444790?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34034723$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenbaum, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rada, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flottorp, Signe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moberg, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><title>Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis</title><title>BMC medical informatics and decision making</title><addtitle>BMC Med Inform Decis Mak</addtitle><description>Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.</description><subject>Audiences</subject><subject>Clinical decision support</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Electronic mail</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Evidence-based health care</subject><subject>GRADE approach</subject><subject>Health informatics</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Translating</subject><subject>User experience</subject><subject>Working groups</subject><issn>1472-6947</issn><issn>1472-6947</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkk9v1DAQxSMEoqXwBTggSxwoh4D_JbF7QELtApUqcaFny55MWi_ZeGs7W_rt8e6WquVg2fL7zdN4_KrqLaOfGFPt58S4ZqymvCzWCF6rZ9Uhkx2vWy2754_OB9WrlJaUsk6J5mV1ICQVRROHVX-ZMKYPBP-sMXqcABO59fma2In4KWO0kP0GyWLj-61KciBnCD75MJFjv8hnH8kQ7QpvQ_x9Qiy5me3os90V2cmOd8mn19WLwY4J39zvR9Xlt8Wv0x_1xc_v56dfL2qQus21ts6Blsr1rpVowXHqEEAgcNcI0QqrgTJ0FEF0TUFADQMwR1VXJiG0OKrO9759sEuzjn5l450J1pvdRYhXxsbsYUQjGYBDKlxLB6m0cwMDZhvFgHMHPRSvL3uv9exW2ANOOdrxielTZfLX5ipsjGKy1aotBsf3BjHczJiyWfkEOI52wjAnw8uP8ZZ2nSzo-__QZZhjGd6WkkJK2WlaKL6nIIaUIg4PzTBqtoEw-0CYEgizC4RRpejd42c8lPxLgPgLguezFg</recordid><startdate>20210525</startdate><enddate>20210525</enddate><creator>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco</creator><creator>Rosenbaum, Sarah</creator><creator>Rada, Gabriel</creator><creator>Flottorp, Signe</creator><creator>Moberg, Jenny</creator><creator>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210525</creationdate><title>Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis</title><author>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco ; Rosenbaum, Sarah ; Rada, Gabriel ; Flottorp, Signe ; Moberg, Jenny ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Audiences</topic><topic>Clinical decision support</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Electronic mail</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Evidence-based health care</topic><topic>GRADE approach</topic><topic>Health informatics</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Translating</topic><topic>User experience</topic><topic>Working groups</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenbaum, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rada, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flottorp, Signe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moberg, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</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>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer science database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</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>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMC medical informatics and decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meneses-Echavez, Jose Francisco</au><au>Rosenbaum, Sarah</au><au>Rada, Gabriel</au><au>Flottorp, Signe</au><au>Moberg, Jenny</au><au>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis</atitle><jtitle>BMC medical informatics and decision making</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Med Inform Decis Mak</addtitle><date>2021-05-25</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>169</spage><epage>169</epage><pages>169-169</pages><artnum>169</artnum><issn>1472-6947</issn><eissn>1472-6947</eissn><abstract>Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central</pub><pmid>34034723</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12911-021-01532-8</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1472-6947
ispartof BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021-05, Vol.21 (1), p.169-169, Article 169
issn 1472-6947
1472-6947
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_41ccbe03b60f489bbf1c1a581c22bcdc
source Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Audiences
Clinical decision support
Content analysis
Criteria
Decision analysis
Decision making
Electronic mail
Ethics
Evidence-based health care
GRADE approach
Health informatics
Interviews
Medical research
Public health
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative research
Research methodology
Translating
User experience
Working groups
title Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A24%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Users'%20experiences%20with%20an%20interactive%20Evidence%20to%20Decision%20(iEtD)%20framework:%20a%20qualitative%20analysis&rft.jtitle=BMC%20medical%20informatics%20and%20decision%20making&rft.au=Meneses-Echavez,%20Jose%20Francisco&rft.date=2021-05-25&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=169&rft.epage=169&rft.pages=169-169&rft.artnum=169&rft.issn=1472-6947&rft.eissn=1472-6947&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12911-021-01532-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2532260774%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-9abbc948bdb64eacb20becc3ec2b53363a9c01eb0ec37564ec8ffc1b087129393%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2543444790&rft_id=info:pmid/34034723&rfr_iscdi=true