Loading…
Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections
Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMC public health 2014-07, Vol.14 (1), p.699-699, Article 699 |
---|---|
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-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943 |
container_end_page | 699 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 699 |
container_title | BMC public health |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Delany, Toni Harris, Patrick Williams, Carmel Harris, Elizabeth Baum, Fran Lawless, Angela Wildgoose, Deborah Haigh, Fiona MacDougall, Colin Broderick, Danny Kickbusch, Ilona |
description | Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).
The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.
Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.
The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-699 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4227125</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A539696429</galeid><sourcerecordid>A539696429</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks2L1TAUxYMozofuXUlAkFnYMd9tXQjloc7AoIKKy5CmtzMZ0uTZtIpb_3JT3_M5T0aQLprk_O7h5p4g9IiSU0or9ZyKkhZMyKqgolB1fQcd7o7u3lgfoKOUrgmhZSXZfXTAJCGypuoQ_TgD46crfD6sjZ1wkxKkNECYsAv4LXzDH-Kc5c_GQ8JP8ZbOWuM9fh-9sy4Leb_hmjlNo_HOvMCd63sYIVhIz3Byg_NmdNNCm9BhG0MAO7kY0gN0rzc-wcPt_xh9ev3q4-qsuHj35nzVXBStonwqJDegjASuamtaxYTtKZWqlaXsJO-ELStb5isKInmvhOyMUbKriCLAWlYLfoxebnzXcztAZ_Mlc6t6PbrBjN91NE7vK8Fd6cv4VQvGSspkNlhtDFoX_2Gwr9g46CUDvWSQVzpHlF1Otm2M8csMadKDSxa8NwHinDSVUtRScK7-AxWVEjnVBX3yF3od5zHkef6iuCoFZX-oy5yndqGPuU-7mOpG8lrVSrClw9NbqPx1MLgcHPQun-8VkE2BHWNKI_S7mVCil4d62xQe3wxjV_D7ZfKfKMjiLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1548367412</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Delany, Toni ; Harris, Patrick ; Williams, Carmel ; Harris, Elizabeth ; Baum, Fran ; Lawless, Angela ; Wildgoose, Deborah ; Haigh, Fiona ; MacDougall, Colin ; Broderick, Danny ; Kickbusch, Ilona</creator><creatorcontrib>Delany, Toni ; Harris, Patrick ; Williams, Carmel ; Harris, Elizabeth ; Baum, Fran ; Lawless, Angela ; Wildgoose, Deborah ; Haigh, Fiona ; MacDougall, Colin ; Broderick, Danny ; Kickbusch, Ilona</creatorcontrib><description>Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).
The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.
Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.
The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-699</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25005916</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Child ; Collaboration ; Government ; Health Impact Assessment ; Health Policy ; Health promotion ; Humans ; New South Wales ; Policy Making ; Public health ; South Australia</subject><ispartof>BMC public health, 2014-07, Vol.14 (1), p.699-699, Article 699</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2014 Delany et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Delany et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 Delany et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943</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/PMC4227125/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1548367412?pq-origsite=primo$$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/25005916$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Delany, Toni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Carmel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baum, Fran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawless, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wildgoose, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haigh, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacDougall, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Broderick, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kickbusch, Ilona</creatorcontrib><title>Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections</title><title>BMC public health</title><addtitle>BMC Public Health</addtitle><description>Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).
The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.
Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.
The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Health Impact Assessment</subject><subject>Health Policy</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>New South Wales</subject><subject>Policy Making</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>South Australia</subject><issn>1471-2458</issn><issn>1471-2458</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks2L1TAUxYMozofuXUlAkFnYMd9tXQjloc7AoIKKy5CmtzMZ0uTZtIpb_3JT3_M5T0aQLprk_O7h5p4g9IiSU0or9ZyKkhZMyKqgolB1fQcd7o7u3lgfoKOUrgmhZSXZfXTAJCGypuoQ_TgD46crfD6sjZ1wkxKkNECYsAv4LXzDH-Kc5c_GQ8JP8ZbOWuM9fh-9sy4Leb_hmjlNo_HOvMCd63sYIVhIz3Byg_NmdNNCm9BhG0MAO7kY0gN0rzc-wcPt_xh9ev3q4-qsuHj35nzVXBStonwqJDegjASuamtaxYTtKZWqlaXsJO-ELStb5isKInmvhOyMUbKriCLAWlYLfoxebnzXcztAZ_Mlc6t6PbrBjN91NE7vK8Fd6cv4VQvGSspkNlhtDFoX_2Gwr9g46CUDvWSQVzpHlF1Otm2M8csMadKDSxa8NwHinDSVUtRScK7-AxWVEjnVBX3yF3od5zHkef6iuCoFZX-oy5yndqGPuU-7mOpG8lrVSrClw9NbqPx1MLgcHPQun-8VkE2BHWNKI_S7mVCil4d62xQe3wxjV_D7ZfKfKMjiLQ</recordid><startdate>20140709</startdate><enddate>20140709</enddate><creator>Delany, Toni</creator><creator>Harris, Patrick</creator><creator>Williams, Carmel</creator><creator>Harris, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Baum, Fran</creator><creator>Lawless, Angela</creator><creator>Wildgoose, Deborah</creator><creator>Haigh, Fiona</creator><creator>MacDougall, Colin</creator><creator>Broderick, Danny</creator><creator>Kickbusch, Ilona</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140709</creationdate><title>Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections</title><author>Delany, Toni ; Harris, Patrick ; Williams, Carmel ; Harris, Elizabeth ; Baum, Fran ; Lawless, Angela ; Wildgoose, Deborah ; Haigh, Fiona ; MacDougall, Colin ; Broderick, Danny ; Kickbusch, Ilona</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Health Impact Assessment</topic><topic>Health Policy</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>New South Wales</topic><topic>Policy Making</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>South Australia</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Delany, Toni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Carmel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baum, Fran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawless, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wildgoose, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haigh, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacDougall, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Broderick, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kickbusch, Ilona</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</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 Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</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>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Delany, Toni</au><au>Harris, Patrick</au><au>Williams, Carmel</au><au>Harris, Elizabeth</au><au>Baum, Fran</au><au>Lawless, Angela</au><au>Wildgoose, Deborah</au><au>Haigh, Fiona</au><au>MacDougall, Colin</au><au>Broderick, Danny</au><au>Kickbusch, Ilona</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections</atitle><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Public Health</addtitle><date>2014-07-09</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>699</spage><epage>699</epage><pages>699-699</pages><artnum>699</artnum><issn>1471-2458</issn><eissn>1471-2458</eissn><abstract>Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).
The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.
Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.
The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>25005916</pmid><doi>10.1186/1471-2458-14-699</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1471-2458 |
ispartof | BMC public health, 2014-07, Vol.14 (1), p.699-699, Article 699 |
issn | 1471-2458 1471-2458 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4227125 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central |
subjects | Adult Child Collaboration Government Health Impact Assessment Health Policy Health promotion Humans New South Wales Policy Making Public health South Australia |
title | Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T01%3A58%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Health%20Impact%20Assessment%20in%20New%20South%20Wales%20&%20Health%20in%20All%20Policies%20in%20South%20Australia:%20differences,%20similarities%20and%20connections&rft.jtitle=BMC%20public%20health&rft.au=Delany,%20Toni&rft.date=2014-07-09&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=699&rft.epage=699&rft.pages=699-699&rft.artnum=699&rft.issn=1471-2458&rft.eissn=1471-2458&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1471-2458-14-699&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA539696429%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b613t-53ae6a5e369cab624cf1156b575d53d4c78c70014053f645daa65d8060e2b2943%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1548367412&rft_id=info:pmid/25005916&rft_galeid=A539696429&rfr_iscdi=true |