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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Agriculture and human values 2018-03, Vol.35 (1), p.207-221 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |