Loading…

Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education

Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radia...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Emergency radiology 2024-12, Vol.31 (6), p.851-866
Main Authors: Eibschutz, Liesl, Lu, Max Yang, Jannatdoust, Payam, Judd, Angela C., Justin, Claire A., Fields, Brandon K.K., Demirjian, Natalie L., Rehani, Madan, Reddy, Sravanthi, Gholamrezanezhad, Ali
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3
container_end_page 866
container_issue 6
container_start_page 851
container_title Emergency radiology
container_volume 31
creator Eibschutz, Liesl
Lu, Max Yang
Jannatdoust, Payam
Judd, Angela C.
Justin, Claire A.
Fields, Brandon K.K.
Demirjian, Natalie L.
Rehani, Madan
Reddy, Sravanthi
Gholamrezanezhad, Ali
description Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers. Methods We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos. Results 108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment ( p  = 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level ( p  = 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees ( p  
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11625072</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3141982050</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v3CAQhlHUqEmT_oEeKqReenE7GGxDLlEVJW2lSLkkZ8RicIhscABH2lP_etns5quHHoCBeeaF4UXoE4FvBKD7nggQBhXUrIyas4rtoUPCKK_K1Lx7FR-gDyndAUArWv4eHVDBSszoIfpzPpk4GK_X2E1qcH7Acww56DAmbEMsOzN45TOeVXbG53SCFZ6WMbvK-ZRdXrILXo1Y-X53jtNstFNjXmMdpllFl4LHweL5dp1cyXhs-kWrTeEx2rdqTObjbj1CNxfn12e_qsurn7_PflxWmjZtrnqhmxXw3tqV0K3mnAkQlBliekVAW9GVbngHXBmxqjnlthXK2lqIrlNALD1Cp1vdeVlNptelk6hGOcfSdVzLoJx8m_HuVg7hQRLS1g10dVH4ulOI4X4xKcvJJW3GUXkTliRpISnlHLqCfvkHvQtLLJ-0oRgRvIYGClVvKR1DStHY59cQkBuD5dZgWQyWjwZLVoo-v-7jueTJ0QLQLZBKyg8mvtz9H9m_xFK0dg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3141982050</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Eibschutz, Liesl ; Lu, Max Yang ; Jannatdoust, Payam ; Judd, Angela C. ; Justin, Claire A. ; Fields, Brandon K.K. ; Demirjian, Natalie L. ; Rehani, Madan ; Reddy, Sravanthi ; Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creator><creatorcontrib>Eibschutz, Liesl ; Lu, Max Yang ; Jannatdoust, Payam ; Judd, Angela C. ; Justin, Claire A. ; Fields, Brandon K.K. ; Demirjian, Natalie L. ; Rehani, Madan ; Reddy, Sravanthi ; Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers. Methods We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos. Results 108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment ( p  = 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level ( p  = 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees ( p  &lt; 0.001). Conclusion This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1438-1435</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1070-3004</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-1435</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39400643</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clinical Competence ; Clinical Protocols ; Confidence ; Confidence intervals ; Education ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Emergency Medicine ; Emergency Medicine - education ; Emergency procedures ; Emergency response ; Female ; Guidelines ; Humans ; Imaging ; Ionizing radiation ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Obstetrics - education ; Original ; Original Article ; Patients ; Physicians ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging ; Questions ; Radiation ; Radiation effects ; Radiology ; Radiology - education ; Response rates ; Subgroups ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States</subject><ispartof>Emergency radiology, 2024-12, Vol.31 (6), p.851-866</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024 corrected publication 2024</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s).</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Dec 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6930-4246</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39400643$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eibschutz, Liesl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Max Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jannatdoust, Payam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Judd, Angela C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Justin, Claire A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fields, Brandon K.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirjian, Natalie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehani, Madan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Sravanthi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creatorcontrib><title>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</title><title>Emergency radiology</title><addtitle>Emerg Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Emerg Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers. Methods We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos. Results 108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment ( p  = 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level ( p  = 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees ( p  &lt; 0.001). Conclusion This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Clinical Protocols</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine - education</subject><subject>Emergency procedures</subject><subject>Emergency response</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Ionizing radiation</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Obstetrics - education</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation effects</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology - education</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1438-1435</issn><issn>1070-3004</issn><issn>1438-1435</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1v3CAQhlHUqEmT_oEeKqReenE7GGxDLlEVJW2lSLkkZ8RicIhscABH2lP_etns5quHHoCBeeaF4UXoE4FvBKD7nggQBhXUrIyas4rtoUPCKK_K1Lx7FR-gDyndAUArWv4eHVDBSszoIfpzPpk4GK_X2E1qcH7Acww56DAmbEMsOzN45TOeVXbG53SCFZ6WMbvK-ZRdXrILXo1Y-X53jtNstFNjXmMdpllFl4LHweL5dp1cyXhs-kWrTeEx2rdqTObjbj1CNxfn12e_qsurn7_PflxWmjZtrnqhmxXw3tqV0K3mnAkQlBliekVAW9GVbngHXBmxqjnlthXK2lqIrlNALD1Cp1vdeVlNptelk6hGOcfSdVzLoJx8m_HuVg7hQRLS1g10dVH4ulOI4X4xKcvJJW3GUXkTliRpISnlHLqCfvkHvQtLLJ-0oRgRvIYGClVvKR1DStHY59cQkBuD5dZgWQyWjwZLVoo-v-7jueTJ0QLQLZBKyg8mvtz9H9m_xFK0dg</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Eibschutz, Liesl</creator><creator>Lu, Max Yang</creator><creator>Jannatdoust, Payam</creator><creator>Judd, Angela C.</creator><creator>Justin, Claire A.</creator><creator>Fields, Brandon K.K.</creator><creator>Demirjian, Natalie L.</creator><creator>Rehani, Madan</creator><creator>Reddy, Sravanthi</creator><creator>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><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>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4246</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</title><author>Eibschutz, Liesl ; Lu, Max Yang ; Jannatdoust, Payam ; Judd, Angela C. ; Justin, Claire A. ; Fields, Brandon K.K. ; Demirjian, Natalie L. ; Rehani, Madan ; Reddy, Sravanthi ; Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Clinical Protocols</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine - education</topic><topic>Emergency procedures</topic><topic>Emergency response</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Ionizing radiation</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Obstetrics - education</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation effects</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology - education</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eibschutz, Liesl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Max Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jannatdoust, Payam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Judd, Angela C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Justin, Claire A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fields, Brandon K.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirjian, Natalie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehani, Madan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Sravanthi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Emergency radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eibschutz, Liesl</au><au>Lu, Max Yang</au><au>Jannatdoust, Payam</au><au>Judd, Angela C.</au><au>Justin, Claire A.</au><au>Fields, Brandon K.K.</au><au>Demirjian, Natalie L.</au><au>Rehani, Madan</au><au>Reddy, Sravanthi</au><au>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</atitle><jtitle>Emergency radiology</jtitle><stitle>Emerg Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Emerg Radiol</addtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>851</spage><epage>866</epage><pages>851-866</pages><issn>1438-1435</issn><issn>1070-3004</issn><eissn>1438-1435</eissn><abstract>Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers. Methods We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos. Results 108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment ( p  = 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level ( p  = 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees ( p  &lt; 0.001). Conclusion This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>39400643</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4246</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1438-1435
ispartof Emergency radiology, 2024-12, Vol.31 (6), p.851-866
issn 1438-1435
1070-3004
1438-1435
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11625072
source Springer Link
subjects Adult
Clinical Competence
Clinical Protocols
Confidence
Confidence intervals
Education
Emergency medical care
Emergency medical services
Emergency Medicine
Emergency Medicine - education
Emergency procedures
Emergency response
Female
Guidelines
Humans
Imaging
Ionizing radiation
Medical imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Obstetrics - education
Original
Original Article
Patients
Physicians
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging
Questions
Radiation
Radiation effects
Radiology
Radiology - education
Response rates
Subgroups
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
title Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T02%3A28%3A04IST&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=Emergency%20imaging%20protocols%20for%20pregnant%20patients:%20a%20multi-institutional%20and%20multi-%20specialty%20comparison%20of%20physician%20education&rft.jtitle=Emergency%20radiology&rft.au=Eibschutz,%20Liesl&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=851&rft.epage=866&rft.pages=851-866&rft.issn=1438-1435&rft.eissn=1438-1435&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3141982050%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3141982050&rft_id=info:pmid/39400643&rfr_iscdi=true