Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Collaborating across academia and local government: augmenting the use of academically produced evidence.","authors":"Tom Douglass, Ewen Speed, Aaron Wyllie, Jack Head, Rejoice Frimpong, Dimitra Mouriki","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000103","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the UK, increasing attention is being given to strengthening the use of academically produced evidence within local government. Recent investment from the National Institute for Health and Care Research has supported various initiatives designed to foster closer collaboration between universities and local authorities. This includes the Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) and a separate researcher-in-residence programme focused on social care. While existing literatures explore research-practice partnerships, embedded research, knowledge mobilisation and evidence use, there remains considerable value in sharing reflections emerging from these recently funded forms of collaboration. Drawing on experiences within one HDRC and from a researcher-in-residence, this reflective article examines efforts to strengthen engagement with academically produced evidence within the public health and social care functions of local government. In reflecting on these experiences, we draw on a conceptual framework which emphasises the importance of capacity, motivation and opportunity in shaping engagement with research evidence. We organise our reflections around three themes: (1) developing engagement with academically produced evidence; (2) negotiating time, pace and policy pressures; and (3) communication, language and professional cultures. Across these areas, we identify recurring tensions and challenges that emerge when academia and local government work together, while also highlighting practical strategies that may strengthen engagement with research evidence. Our experiences suggest that effective collaboration depends not only on producing robust research findings, but also on sustained engagement with research processes, shared expectations around time and policy relevance, and accessible forms of communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148474162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Anglicare Southern Queensland's Seed Grants Program: opportunities and challenges in establishing and sustaining research-practice partnerships in Australia's human services sector.","authors":"Ana Stevenson, Leanne Wood","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000101","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anglicare Southern Queensland (Anglicare) is a not-for-profit organisation that has been providing human services and social care in Queensland, Australia, since the 1870s. Since 2023, Anglicare has administered a Seed Grants Program that connects Anglicare staff with university-based academics to bring original research ideas to life through partnership and collaboration. Anglicare's Seed Grants Program aims to nurture applied research that can be piloted or implemented to benefit clients and/or staff. The objective is to feed research-based evidence back into organisational practice and decision-making to influence future service delivery, alongside the possibility of building towards larger research projects with organisational or sector-wide significance and implications. This practice paper explores the key opportunities and challenges that shape Anglicare's Seed Grants Program, with a focus on embedding organisational governance and knowledge co-production through the Seed Grant Model. Opportunities derive from the contribution that research makes to innovation and researcher development within the organisation. Challenges relate to securing academic partners and accessing human research ethics committees, while ensuring staff buy-in and accounting for staff mobility. Building on literature relating to research-practice partnerships (RPPs) in social care, the research-practice gap, and researcher development in the university sector, these insights offer transferable lessons for establishing and sustaining collaborative RPPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148474159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preventing workplace aggression through a multi-actor perspective: bridging the gap between evidence and public policies.","authors":"Roberta Fida, Lowri Evans, Sukhwinder Salh, Claudio Barbaranelli, Monica Ghelli, Matteo Ronchetti","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000100","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite extensive research on workplace aggression, far less attention has been paid to how regulatory frameworks structure its prevention and management. Although national policies establish legal duties and guidance, it remains unclear how prevention is conceptualised, how responsibilities and interventions are articulated for different actors (perpetrators, targets and bystanders), and the extent to which policy aligns with contemporary evidence.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This study conducts a systematic policy mapping review of UK statutory and non-statutory documents addressing workplace aggression. Using a multi-actor, multi-level prevention framework, we examine how policies define workplace aggression, structure monitoring, and distribute primary, secondary and tertiary prevention across perpetrators, targets, and bystanders.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We screened 8,413 documents and analysed 57 eligible policies. The mapping reveals a fragmented policy landscape characterised by definitional inconsistencies, uneven monitoring guidance, limited attention to digital forms of aggression and an imbalanced prevention portfolio. Prevention efforts are comparatively concentrated on targets and post-incident responses, with limited articulation of bystander-focused and tertiary strategies, and relatively little structured primary prevention targeting perpetrators beyond normative statements such as zero-tolerance. These patterns suggest a predominantly reactive orientation within current policy approaches.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>By systematically applying a multi-actor framework across the full policy corpus, this study moves beyond descriptive review to provide a diagnostic account of prevention coverage within a mature regulatory system. The framework offers a practical tool for policy makers and organisations to audit gaps, strengthen prevention portfolios and stage implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148474221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From evidence to impact: advancing equity, learning and accountability in Ethiopia's education policy through research partnerships.","authors":"Mesele Araya, Pauline Rose, Dawit Tibebu Tiruneh, Ricardo Sabates Aysa, Tassew Woldehanna","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000099","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research-policy partnerships are widely used to support evidence-informed reform, yet how evidence actually shapes policy and practice in low-income education systems remains poorly understood. This article asks how, and under what relational and institutional conditions, evidence generated by Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE) Ethiopia contributed to national policy on equity, learning and accountability.</p><p><strong>Methods/data: </strong>The study uses qualitative data, drawing on 22 semi-structured interviews with senior federal policy makers, regional officials, development partners and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), complemented by documentary analysis of RISE outputs, education sector plans and policy materials.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>Interview transcripts and documents were analysed using a thematic analysis framework, combining deductive coding organised around bounded mutuality, sustained interactivity and policy adaptability with inductive coding of emergent evidence-to-policy contribution pathways.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RISE evidence contributed to the bottom-up design of the four-year Education Transformation Programme and its implementation vehicle, Education Transformation Operation for Learning (2025-2029), supported a reframing of national discourse from schooling expansion towards foundational learning, helped develop an equity narrative grounded in observed learning gains among disadvantaged students within a school year, and informed COVID-19 school-reopening deliberations. Contributions were clearest where trusted relationships, timely decision windows and actionable evidence converged; where any of these elements was weak, policy impact was correspondingly less direct.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The article shows that policy contribution was enabled by relational conditions that allowed evidence to be heard, trusted and acted upon. It offers a transferable framework for embedding research in policy systems and underscores the need for sustained institutional investment in the capacity for evidence use.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148426047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What might constitute research misuse in knowledge brokering and how might Ofsted's 2021 mathematics 'research review' be considered as an example?","authors":"Lucy Rycroft-Smith","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000098","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knowledge brokering, the process of connecting research with policy and practice, carries significant responsibility for accurate and honest representation of evidence. Despite this, there is currently no agreed-upon definition of research misuse in knowledge-brokering contexts, nor a framework for identifying it. Ofsted's 2021 mathematics 'research review' attracted substantial critique from the mathematics education community, with multiple claims of research misuse, making it a well-documented case through which to explore these issues.</p><p><strong>Position: </strong>This article argues that Ofsted (2021) constitutes research misuse in knowledge brokering, enabled by research-washing, defined as presenting evidence-based work as credible or trustworthy without using credible or trustworthy processes to create it.</p><p><strong>Arguments: </strong>A novel typology of research misuse in knowledge brokering is proposed, drawing on the author's extensive experience as a knowledge broker and comprising misquotation or mis-citation, necrocitation, transmission, cherry-picking, conflict of interest, misrepresentation, misinference and hubris. This typology is tested against Ofsted (2021) using publicly available community critiques as evidence. Substantial and sustained evidence of multiple elements of the typology is found, supporting a conclusion of research misuse.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Identifying research misuse in knowledge-brokering products such as evidence syntheses and research reviews is crucial for holding knowledge brokers accountable. The typology proposed here could be validated against further cases and developed into a practical tool for evaluating knowledge-brokering quality and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148426073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Credible intermediaries: rhetorical strategies for an ethos of interactional expertise.","authors":"Christine Ackerley","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000094","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000094","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intermediaries such as think tanks, commissions, and non-profits produce large volumes of grey literature to inform public policy. Yet, the rhetorical practices that make their grey literature reports credible and persuasive remain poorly understood. Because intermediaries operate between multiple communities, they must build credibility without necessarily possessing expertise in each domain - a distinctive challenge with practical implications for their evidence-to-policy communication.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To (1) investigate rhetorical strategies intermediaries use to establish credibility as grey literature authors; and (2) explore how rhetorical ethos adds explanatory power to help understand intermediaries' communication with policy audiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a qualitative multiple case study design, I analyzed three influential reports on antimicrobial resistance written by non-governmental intermediaries. Each case combined close reading of report texts with analysis of production and reception materials and 23 semi-structured interviews with authors, contributors, and policy audience members.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Intermediaries cultivated a distinctive ethos of interactional expertise through two key rhetorical strategies. First, they performed an extended invention process, publicly showcasing how they learned over time and engaged diverse stakeholders. Second, they emphasized inclusivity, transparency, and independence as signature virtues.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Foregrounding ethos clarifies how intermediaries can navigate their rhetorical situation and write more persuasively to inform policy. The study contributes both theoretical insight and practical guidance: intermediaries can enhance credibility by publicly showing their process of engagement and by enacting virtues that leverage their unique position between communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148341177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What counts as knowing? Reflections on evidence hierarchies in qualitative longitudinal and participatory research with young fathers.","authors":"Anna Tarrant","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000097","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000097","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>What counts as evidence remains contested at the research-policy interface, with consequences for qualitative researchers seeking to demonstrate impact. Despite increasing recognition of lived experience and participatory inquiry, entrenched evidence hierarchies continue to privilege quantification, scale and standardisation as markers of methodological rigour and policy relevance. These dynamics pose particular challenges for research with marginalised groups whose lives remain under-specified within administrative data systems.</p><p><strong>Position: </strong>Drawing on insights from a qualitative longitudinal and participatory research programme with young fathers, this article argues that evidential credibility tied to prevalence and sample size systematically constrains the visibility, uptake and impact of qualitative research. Contesting these hierarchies requires both critical attention to how they operate and a broader understanding of what constitutes legitimate impact.</p><p><strong>Arguments: </strong>Two encounters demonstrate how evidence hierarchies are reproduced through everyday institutional practices that privilege quantification as a proxy for credibility and policy relevance. The recurring demand to establish how many young fathers there are nationally exposes how populations under-specified within administrative and frontline data systems struggle to achieve evidential visibility. Meanwhile, a government quality assurance process privileging sample sizes exceeding 1,000 participants illustrates how scale operates as a marker of legitimacy despite the distinctive depth, relationality and temporal insight generated through qualitative longitudinal research. Together, these dynamics create a self-reinforcing cycle in which already under-researched populations remain empirically and institutionally marginalised.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Funders, policy makers, practitioners and academic institutions must support processual, relational and longitudinal models of impact that recognise qualitative inquiry as central to credible evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148341183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mobilising knowledge for the design of crisis preparedness measures in street-level organisations.","authors":"Anna Malandrino","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000096","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000096","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large-scale emergencies push street-level organisations (SLOs) towards improvisation, yet we know less about how crisis experience is stabilised into preparedness. Bringing crisis-preparedness and knowledge mobilisation (KM) into dialogue, this article conceptualises preparedness as a negotiated configuration of knowledge types, KM mechanisms and sustaining infrastructures.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>The article connects KM and crisis preparedness literatures, asking: (1) which knowledge types are invoked in practitioner-designed measures; (2) how co-design outputs articulate pathways from improvisation to future routines and structures; and (3) how these differ across sectoral configurations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis focuses on three sector-specific, aspirational 'good practice' documents produced in May 2023 in northern Italy through co-design workshops. Thematic analysis was conducted with a deductive codebook and inductive theme coding, with the interpretative aid of further workshop material. Transparency was enhanced through independent AI double-coding followed by human adjudication.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Across sectoral workshops, phronesis is most salient, followed by techne and episteme. Participants propose preparedness architectures centred on local crisis units and micro-territorial coordination, routinised training and exercises, and coherent synthesis and dissemination of changing rules through official channels. Between-workshop differences appear mainly in the proposed sustaining axes, KM mechanisms and robustness features.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Co-design outputs foreground practical judgement as the means through which empirical and technical inputs become actionable and ethically legitimate under ambiguity. Boundary objects tend to be relevant to practitioners insofar as co-design is explicitly structured and formalised. Frontline preparedness is narrated as value-laden and relies on KM infrastructures close to institutional and sectoral contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148284675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Re-imagining policy futures: youth-led research and pathways to change - an introduction.","authors":"Mariah Kornbluh, Jennifer Renick","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000095","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000095","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Central question: </strong>This special issue examines how youth participatory action research (YPAR) can strengthen the use of youth-generated research evidence (URE) in policy making across schools, districts, municipalities and national systems. The issue emerges at a moment of heightened political polarization, declining public trust in expertise, and increasing scrutiny of universities and scientific institutions globally. In parallel, young people are disproportionately affected by policy decisions yet are often excluded from formal decision-making processes. These contexts raise urgent questions about how research can remain relevant, trusted and responsive while also expanding democratic participation.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>YPAR offers one promising response to these challenges. As a collaborative research approach in which youth work alongside adult allies as co-researchers, YPAR positions young people to identify pressing issues, design and conduct research, and mobilize findings toward social and policy change. In doing so, it shifts youth from the role of research participants to knowledge producers and advocates. Prior research demonstrates that YPAR can generate benefits for youth, adult partners, schools, communities and the research enterprise by increasing the relevance, legitimacy and actionability of evidence.</p><p><strong>Findings and implications: </strong>Bringing together diverse empirical and conceptual contributions, this special issue explores the conditions under which youth-generated research informs policy and practice, whose knowledge is recognized as credible, and how evidence systems can become more inclusive of marginalized perspectives and lived experiences. Collectively, the articles argue that engaging youth as researchers is not only developmentally meaningful, but also essential for building more democratic, equitable and publicly responsive research-to-policy systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"319-330"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148240466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Behavioural science policy advice-making during COVID-19: lessons from the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Finland.","authors":"Daniel H de Vries, Marijn Stok, Susan Michie, Peter D Lunn, Jonas Sivelä, Marijn de Bruin","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2026D000000092","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Effective pandemic response requires large-scale behavioural change. Despite efforts to integrate behavioural science advice in public health policy making, there is a shortage of empirical evidence on the challenges faced by countries that want to professionalise their behavioural science advisory capacity. As senior behavioural science advisers during the COVID-19 pandemic, we explored and compared how behavioural science organised itself across Northwestern Europe in order to draw lessons for integrating behavioural insights into policy during future crises.</p><p><strong>Methods/data: </strong>Using the evidence-based public health framework, we conducted interviews with 21 senior stakeholders from the Netherlands, Ireland, the UK and Finland, followed by a facilitated look-back meeting with a subset of participants. All participants were actively involved in their countries' pandemic responses.</p><p><strong>Analytical plan: </strong>Data were analysed using qualitative analysis software (NVivo 15) and validated during the facilitated look-back meeting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Producing actionable and relevant behavioural science advice during crises benefits from: (1) drawing on a wide mix of research methodologies; (2) sustaining continuous dialogue with, and access to, policy and decision-makers; (3) ensuring clear packaging and delivery of advice, including additional efforts to support comprehension; (4) creating functional structures for interdisciplinarity; and (5) maintaining institutional memory of the competencies and relationships developed during crisis response.</p><p><strong>Conclusion/implications: </strong>An improved science for policy practice in the health field involves the difficult tasks of motivating direct dialogue, interdisciplinarity and co-creation, and a functioning governance of behavioural science advice systems. The findings further illustrate the conceptual utility of the evidence-based public health framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148240478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}