Loading…

Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice

Animal health is a key factor affecting the economic efficiency of the dairy industry. Improvements in animal health are also of relevance to society more broadly, given important implications for animal welfare, food safety and quality. Although the economic gains of best practice with regard to an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Agriculture and human values 2018-03, Vol.35 (1), p.207-221
Main Authors: Dillon, Emma Jane, Hennessy, Thia, Howley, Peter, Cullinan, John, Heanue, Kevin, Cawley, Anthony
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-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3
container_end_page 221
container_issue 1
container_start_page 207
container_title Agriculture and human values
container_volume 35
creator Dillon, Emma Jane
Hennessy, Thia
Howley, Peter
Cullinan, John
Heanue, Kevin
Cawley, Anthony
description Animal health is a key factor affecting the economic efficiency of the dairy industry. Improvements in animal health are also of relevance to society more broadly, given important implications for animal welfare, food safety and quality. Although the economic gains of best practice with regard to animal health have been well documented, many farmers are not adopting optimal herd management techniques. This paper utilises nationally representative farm-level data from Ireland for 2013 to identify drivers and barriers to the adoption of best practice with regard to on-farm mastitis management. Exploratory factor analysis is used to derive measures of farmers’ attitudes towards animal health and mastitis and econometric techniques are employed to empirically assess the influence of these on the uptake of beneficial herd health management practices. A number of focus groups were also undertaken to complement the analysis. This paper concludes that farmers’ attitudes towards animal health are not a key driver in the uptake of best practice, although perceived disease risk is of relevance. A number of interesting issues arise in identifying barriers to the uptake of best practice, these include the possibility of routine inertia, i.e., farmers do not deviate from the routine developed around mastitis prevention until there is an indication of infection, as well as constraints around the availability of labour and time. Farmer behaviour with respect to mastitis management can thus be considered as reactionary as opposed to precautionary. This research highlights the valuable role of the extension agent but concludes that engagement around knowledge transfer and technology adoption is particularly complex.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2003307406</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2003307406</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG8Fz9FJ0nwdZdFVWBBEwVtIm6nbZW1r0j3svzelgicP8wHzvDPDS8g1g1sGoO8Sg1IBBaapNTnJE7JgUnNqhFKnZAHGWAql-TgnFyntAMBo4Auyfu0PY9thkSOOrS98F4qIvh7bvvPxmPs09F2agDxrv_y-2KLfj9uiwjQWQ5zQGi_JWeP3Ca9-65K8Pz68rZ7o5mX9vLrf0FqUdqRSNaCxlEwgYrA1Z6WtpFGNYVZ6ZIIr5ZHzUAluDQaJwgbPg-ZKBl8FsSQ3894h9t-H_IHb9YfY5ZOOAwgBugSVKTZTdexTiti4IebX49ExcJNfbvbLZb_c5JeTWcNnTcps94nxb_P_oh_qtG2t</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2003307406</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice</title><source>ABI/INFORM Collection</source><source>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</source><source>Springer Nature</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCO_EconLit with Full Text(美国经济学会全文数据库)</source><creator>Dillon, Emma Jane ; Hennessy, Thia ; Howley, Peter ; Cullinan, John ; Heanue, Kevin ; Cawley, Anthony</creator><creatorcontrib>Dillon, Emma Jane ; Hennessy, Thia ; Howley, Peter ; Cullinan, John ; Heanue, Kevin ; Cawley, Anthony</creatorcontrib><description>Animal health is a key factor affecting the economic efficiency of the dairy industry. Improvements in animal health are also of relevance to society more broadly, given important implications for animal welfare, food safety and quality. Although the economic gains of best practice with regard to animal health have been well documented, many farmers are not adopting optimal herd management techniques. This paper utilises nationally representative farm-level data from Ireland for 2013 to identify drivers and barriers to the adoption of best practice with regard to on-farm mastitis management. Exploratory factor analysis is used to derive measures of farmers’ attitudes towards animal health and mastitis and econometric techniques are employed to empirically assess the influence of these on the uptake of beneficial herd health management practices. A number of focus groups were also undertaken to complement the analysis. This paper concludes that farmers’ attitudes towards animal health are not a key driver in the uptake of best practice, although perceived disease risk is of relevance. A number of interesting issues arise in identifying barriers to the uptake of best practice, these include the possibility of routine inertia, i.e., farmers do not deviate from the routine developed around mastitis prevention until there is an indication of infection, as well as constraints around the availability of labour and time. Farmer behaviour with respect to mastitis management can thus be considered as reactionary as opposed to precautionary. This research highlights the valuable role of the extension agent but concludes that engagement around knowledge transfer and technology adoption is particularly complex.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-048X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8366</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Adoption of innovations ; Aerospace technology transfer ; Agricultural Economics ; Agricultural extension work ; Animal care ; Animal health ; Animal welfare ; Animals ; Best practice ; Cattle ; Dairy industry ; Discriminant analysis ; Econometrics ; Economic factors ; Economics ; Education ; Ethics ; Evolutionary Biology ; Exploratory factor analysis ; Factor analysis ; Farmers ; Farms ; Food ; Food quality ; Food safety ; Health behavior ; Health risks ; History ; Inertia ; Knowledge management ; Management ; Mastitis ; Mixed methods research ; Philosophy ; Preventive medicine ; Quality of care ; Risk perception ; Technology ; Technology adoption ; Technology utilization ; Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science</subject><ispartof>Agriculture and human values, 2018-03, Vol.35 (1), p.207-221</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017</rights><rights>Agriculture and Human Values is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2003307406/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2003307406?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,12861,21394,21395,27344,27924,27925,33611,33774,34530,34775,36060,43733,44115,44200,44363,74093,74511,74600,74767</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dillon, Emma Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hennessy, Thia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howley, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cullinan, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heanue, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cawley, Anthony</creatorcontrib><title>Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice</title><title>Agriculture and human values</title><addtitle>Agric Hum Values</addtitle><description>Animal health is a key factor affecting the economic efficiency of the dairy industry. Improvements in animal health are also of relevance to society more broadly, given important implications for animal welfare, food safety and quality. Although the economic gains of best practice with regard to animal health have been well documented, many farmers are not adopting optimal herd management techniques. This paper utilises nationally representative farm-level data from Ireland for 2013 to identify drivers and barriers to the adoption of best practice with regard to on-farm mastitis management. Exploratory factor analysis is used to derive measures of farmers’ attitudes towards animal health and mastitis and econometric techniques are employed to empirically assess the influence of these on the uptake of beneficial herd health management practices. A number of focus groups were also undertaken to complement the analysis. This paper concludes that farmers’ attitudes towards animal health are not a key driver in the uptake of best practice, although perceived disease risk is of relevance. A number of interesting issues arise in identifying barriers to the uptake of best practice, these include the possibility of routine inertia, i.e., farmers do not deviate from the routine developed around mastitis prevention until there is an indication of infection, as well as constraints around the availability of labour and time. Farmer behaviour with respect to mastitis management can thus be considered as reactionary as opposed to precautionary. This research highlights the valuable role of the extension agent but concludes that engagement around knowledge transfer and technology adoption is particularly complex.</description><subject>Adoption of innovations</subject><subject>Aerospace technology transfer</subject><subject>Agricultural Economics</subject><subject>Agricultural extension work</subject><subject>Animal care</subject><subject>Animal health</subject><subject>Animal welfare</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Dairy industry</subject><subject>Discriminant analysis</subject><subject>Econometrics</subject><subject>Economic factors</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Evolutionary Biology</subject><subject>Exploratory factor analysis</subject><subject>Factor analysis</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food quality</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Health behavior</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>History</subject><subject>Inertia</subject><subject>Knowledge management</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Mastitis</subject><subject>Mixed methods research</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Quality of care</subject><subject>Risk perception</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Technology adoption</subject><subject>Technology utilization</subject><subject>Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science</subject><issn>0889-048X</issn><issn>1572-8366</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG8Fz9FJ0nwdZdFVWBBEwVtIm6nbZW1r0j3svzelgicP8wHzvDPDS8g1g1sGoO8Sg1IBBaapNTnJE7JgUnNqhFKnZAHGWAql-TgnFyntAMBo4Auyfu0PY9thkSOOrS98F4qIvh7bvvPxmPs09F2agDxrv_y-2KLfj9uiwjQWQ5zQGi_JWeP3Ca9-65K8Pz68rZ7o5mX9vLrf0FqUdqRSNaCxlEwgYrA1Z6WtpFGNYVZ6ZIIr5ZHzUAluDQaJwgbPg-ZKBl8FsSQ3894h9t-H_IHb9YfY5ZOOAwgBugSVKTZTdexTiti4IebX49ExcJNfbvbLZb_c5JeTWcNnTcps94nxb_P_oh_qtG2t</recordid><startdate>20180301</startdate><enddate>20180301</enddate><creator>Dillon, Emma Jane</creator><creator>Hennessy, Thia</creator><creator>Howley, Peter</creator><creator>Cullinan, John</creator><creator>Heanue, Kevin</creator><creator>Cawley, Anthony</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180301</creationdate><title>Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice</title><author>Dillon, Emma Jane ; Hennessy, Thia ; Howley, Peter ; Cullinan, John ; Heanue, Kevin ; Cawley, Anthony</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adoption of innovations</topic><topic>Aerospace technology transfer</topic><topic>Agricultural Economics</topic><topic>Agricultural extension work</topic><topic>Animal care</topic><topic>Animal health</topic><topic>Animal welfare</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Dairy industry</topic><topic>Discriminant analysis</topic><topic>Econometrics</topic><topic>Economic factors</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Evolutionary Biology</topic><topic>Exploratory factor analysis</topic><topic>Factor analysis</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food quality</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Health behavior</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>History</topic><topic>Inertia</topic><topic>Knowledge management</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Mastitis</topic><topic>Mixed methods research</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Quality of care</topic><topic>Risk perception</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Technology adoption</topic><topic>Technology utilization</topic><topic>Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dillon, Emma Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hennessy, Thia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howley, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cullinan, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heanue, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cawley, Anthony</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</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>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Agriculture and human values</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dillon, Emma Jane</au><au>Hennessy, Thia</au><au>Howley, Peter</au><au>Cullinan, John</au><au>Heanue, Kevin</au><au>Cawley, Anthony</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice</atitle><jtitle>Agriculture and human values</jtitle><stitle>Agric Hum Values</stitle><date>2018-03-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>207</spage><epage>221</epage><pages>207-221</pages><issn>0889-048X</issn><eissn>1572-8366</eissn><abstract>Animal health is a key factor affecting the economic efficiency of the dairy industry. Improvements in animal health are also of relevance to society more broadly, given important implications for animal welfare, food safety and quality. Although the economic gains of best practice with regard to animal health have been well documented, many farmers are not adopting optimal herd management techniques. This paper utilises nationally representative farm-level data from Ireland for 2013 to identify drivers and barriers to the adoption of best practice with regard to on-farm mastitis management. Exploratory factor analysis is used to derive measures of farmers’ attitudes towards animal health and mastitis and econometric techniques are employed to empirically assess the influence of these on the uptake of beneficial herd health management practices. A number of focus groups were also undertaken to complement the analysis. This paper concludes that farmers’ attitudes towards animal health are not a key driver in the uptake of best practice, although perceived disease risk is of relevance. A number of interesting issues arise in identifying barriers to the uptake of best practice, these include the possibility of routine inertia, i.e., farmers do not deviate from the routine developed around mastitis prevention until there is an indication of infection, as well as constraints around the availability of labour and time. Farmer behaviour with respect to mastitis management can thus be considered as reactionary as opposed to precautionary. This research highlights the valuable role of the extension agent but concludes that engagement around knowledge transfer and technology adoption is particularly complex.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0889-048X
ispartof Agriculture and human values, 2018-03, Vol.35 (1), p.207-221
issn 0889-048X
1572-8366
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2003307406
source ABI/INFORM Collection; Art, Design and Architecture Collection; Springer Nature; Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Sociology Collection; Sociological Abstracts; EBSCO_EconLit with Full Text(美国经济学会全文数据库)
subjects Adoption of innovations
Aerospace technology transfer
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural extension work
Animal care
Animal health
Animal welfare
Animals
Best practice
Cattle
Dairy industry
Discriminant analysis
Econometrics
Economic factors
Economics
Education
Ethics
Evolutionary Biology
Exploratory factor analysis
Factor analysis
Farmers
Farms
Food
Food quality
Food safety
Health behavior
Health risks
History
Inertia
Knowledge management
Management
Mastitis
Mixed methods research
Philosophy
Preventive medicine
Quality of care
Risk perception
Technology
Technology adoption
Technology utilization
Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science
title Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T21%3A05%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Routine%20inertia%20and%20reactionary%20response%20in%20animal%20health%20best%20practice&rft.jtitle=Agriculture%20and%20human%20values&rft.au=Dillon,%20Emma%20Jane&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=221&rft.pages=207-221&rft.issn=0889-048X&rft.eissn=1572-8366&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10460-017-9817-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2003307406%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-56f07e4513eeed9c2149b586f8195ae13266ae22db3298ed5e39da2d7265dabd3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2003307406&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true