支持囊性纤维化成人吸入药物依从性的干预措施:ACtiF研究项目包括RCT

Q4 Medicine
M. Wildman, A. O’Cathain, D. Hind, Chin Maguire, M. Arden, M. Hutchings, J. Bradley, S. Walters, P. Whelan, J. Ainsworth, P. Tappenden, I. Buchan, R. Elliott, J. Nicholl, S. Elborn, S. Michie, L. Mandefield, L. Sutton, Z. Hoo, S. Drabble, E. Lumley, D. Beever, A. Navega Biz, Anne Scott, S. Waterhouse, L. Robinson, Mónica Hernández Alava, A. Sasso
{"title":"支持囊性纤维化成人吸入药物依从性的干预措施:ACtiF研究项目包括RCT","authors":"M. Wildman, A. O’Cathain, D. Hind, Chin Maguire, M. Arden, M. Hutchings, J. Bradley, S. Walters, P. Whelan, J. Ainsworth, P. Tappenden, I. Buchan, R. Elliott, J. Nicholl, S. Elborn, S. Michie, L. Mandefield, L. Sutton, Z. Hoo, S. Drabble, E. Lumley, D. Beever, A. Navega Biz, Anne Scott, S. Waterhouse, L. Robinson, Mónica Hernández Alava, A. Sasso","doi":"10.3310/pgfar09110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n People with cystic fibrosis frequently have low levels of adherence to inhaled medications.\n \n \n \n The objectives were to develop and evaluate an intervention for adults with cystic fibrosis to improve adherence to their inhaled medication.\n \n \n \n We used agile software methods to develop an online platform. We used mixed methods to develop a behaviour change intervention for delivery by an interventionist. These were integrated to become the CFHealthHub intervention. We undertook a feasibility study consisting of a pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation in two cystic fibrosis centres. We evaluated the intervention using an open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with usual care as the control. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to intervention or usual care. Usual care consisted of clinic visits every 3 months. We undertook a process evaluation alongside the randomised controlled trial, including a fidelity study, a qualitative interview study and a mediation analysis. We undertook a health economic analysis using both a within-trial and model-based analysis.\n \n \n \n The randomised controlled trial took place in 19 UK cystic fibrosis centres.\n \n \n \n Participants were people aged ≥ 16 years with cystic fibrosis, on the cystic fibrosis registry, not post lung transplant or on the active transplant list, who were able to consent and not using dry-powder inhalers.\n \n \n \n People with cystic fibrosis used a nebuliser with electronic monitoring capabilities. This transferred data automatically to a digital platform. People with cystic fibrosis and clinicians could monitor adherence using these data, including through a mobile application (app). CFHealthHub displayed graphs of adherence data as well as educational and problem-solving information. A trained interventionist helped people with cystic fibrosis to address their adherence.\n \n \n \n Randomised controlled trial – adjusted incidence rate ratio of pulmonary exacerbations meeting the modified Fuchs criteria over a 12-month follow-up period (primary outcome); change in percentage adherence; and per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (key secondary outcomes). Process evaluation – percentage fidelity to intervention delivery, and participant and interventionist perceptions of the intervention. Economic modelling – incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.\n \n \n \n Randomised controlled trial – 608 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 303). To our knowledge, this was the largest randomised controlled trial in cystic fibrosis undertaken in the UK. The adjusted rate of exacerbations per year (primary outcome) was 1.63 in the intervention and 1.77 in the usual-care arm (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.12; p = 0.638) after adjustment for covariates. The adjusted difference in mean weekly normative adherence was 9.5% (95% confidence interval 8.6% to 10.4%) across 1 year, favouring the intervention. Adjusted mean difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted at 12 months was 1.4% (95% confidence interval –0.2% to 3.0%). No adverse events were related to the intervention. Process evaluation – fidelity of intervention delivery was high, the intervention was acceptable to people with cystic fibrosis, participants engaged with the intervention [287/305 (94%) attended the first intervention visit], expected mechanisms of action were identified and contextual factors varied between randomised controlled trial sites. Qualitative interviews with 22 people with cystic fibrosis and 26 interventionists identified that people with cystic fibrosis welcomed the objective adherence data as proof of actions to self and others, and valued the relationship that they built with the interventionists. Economic modelling – the within-trial analysis suggests that the intervention generated 0.01 additional quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £865.91 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £71,136 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This should be interpreted with caution owing to the short time horizon. The health economic model suggests that the intervention is expected to generate 0.17 additional quality-adjusted life-years and cost savings of £1790 over a lifetime (70-year) horizon; hence, the intervention is expected to dominate usual care. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention generates more net benefit than usual care is 0.89. The model results are dependent on assumptions regarding the duration over which costs and effects of the intervention apply, the impact of the intervention on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted and the relationship between increased adherence and drug-prescribing levels.\n \n \n \n Number of exacerbations is a sensitive and valid measure of clinical change used in many trials. However, data collection of this outcome in this context was challenging and could have been subject to bias. It was not possible to measure baseline adherence accurately. It was not possible to quantify the impact of the intervention on the number of packs of medicines prescribed.\n \n \n \n We developed a feasible and acceptable intervention that was delivered to fidelity in the randomised controlled trial. We observed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of exacerbation rates over 12 months. We observed an increase in normative adherence levels in a disease where adherence levels are low. The magnitude of the increase in adherence may not have been large enough to affect exacerbations.\n \n \n \n Given the non-significant difference in the primary outcome, further research is required to explore why an increase in objective normative adherence did not reduce exacerbations and to develop interventions that reduce exacerbations.\n \n \n \n Work package 3.1: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13076797. Work packages 3.2 and 3.3: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55504164.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An intervention to support adherence to inhaled medication in adults with cystic fibrosis: the ACtiF research programme including RCT\",\"authors\":\"M. Wildman, A. O’Cathain, D. Hind, Chin Maguire, M. Arden, M. Hutchings, J. Bradley, S. Walters, P. Whelan, J. Ainsworth, P. Tappenden, I. Buchan, R. Elliott, J. Nicholl, S. Elborn, S. Michie, L. Mandefield, L. Sutton, Z. Hoo, S. Drabble, E. Lumley, D. Beever, A. Navega Biz, Anne Scott, S. Waterhouse, L. Robinson, Mónica Hernández Alava, A. Sasso\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/pgfar09110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n People with cystic fibrosis frequently have low levels of adherence to inhaled medications.\\n \\n \\n \\n The objectives were to develop and evaluate an intervention for adults with cystic fibrosis to improve adherence to their inhaled medication.\\n \\n \\n \\n We used agile software methods to develop an online platform. We used mixed methods to develop a behaviour change intervention for delivery by an interventionist. These were integrated to become the CFHealthHub intervention. We undertook a feasibility study consisting of a pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation in two cystic fibrosis centres. We evaluated the intervention using an open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with usual care as the control. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to intervention or usual care. Usual care consisted of clinic visits every 3 months. We undertook a process evaluation alongside the randomised controlled trial, including a fidelity study, a qualitative interview study and a mediation analysis. We undertook a health economic analysis using both a within-trial and model-based analysis.\\n \\n \\n \\n The randomised controlled trial took place in 19 UK cystic fibrosis centres.\\n \\n \\n \\n Participants were people aged ≥ 16 years with cystic fibrosis, on the cystic fibrosis registry, not post lung transplant or on the active transplant list, who were able to consent and not using dry-powder inhalers.\\n \\n \\n \\n People with cystic fibrosis used a nebuliser with electronic monitoring capabilities. This transferred data automatically to a digital platform. People with cystic fibrosis and clinicians could monitor adherence using these data, including through a mobile application (app). CFHealthHub displayed graphs of adherence data as well as educational and problem-solving information. A trained interventionist helped people with cystic fibrosis to address their adherence.\\n \\n \\n \\n Randomised controlled trial – adjusted incidence rate ratio of pulmonary exacerbations meeting the modified Fuchs criteria over a 12-month follow-up period (primary outcome); change in percentage adherence; and per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (key secondary outcomes). Process evaluation – percentage fidelity to intervention delivery, and participant and interventionist perceptions of the intervention. Economic modelling – incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.\\n \\n \\n \\n Randomised controlled trial – 608 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 303). To our knowledge, this was the largest randomised controlled trial in cystic fibrosis undertaken in the UK. The adjusted rate of exacerbations per year (primary outcome) was 1.63 in the intervention and 1.77 in the usual-care arm (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.12; p = 0.638) after adjustment for covariates. The adjusted difference in mean weekly normative adherence was 9.5% (95% confidence interval 8.6% to 10.4%) across 1 year, favouring the intervention. Adjusted mean difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted at 12 months was 1.4% (95% confidence interval –0.2% to 3.0%). No adverse events were related to the intervention. Process evaluation – fidelity of intervention delivery was high, the intervention was acceptable to people with cystic fibrosis, participants engaged with the intervention [287/305 (94%) attended the first intervention visit], expected mechanisms of action were identified and contextual factors varied between randomised controlled trial sites. Qualitative interviews with 22 people with cystic fibrosis and 26 interventionists identified that people with cystic fibrosis welcomed the objective adherence data as proof of actions to self and others, and valued the relationship that they built with the interventionists. Economic modelling – the within-trial analysis suggests that the intervention generated 0.01 additional quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £865.91 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £71,136 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This should be interpreted with caution owing to the short time horizon. The health economic model suggests that the intervention is expected to generate 0.17 additional quality-adjusted life-years and cost savings of £1790 over a lifetime (70-year) horizon; hence, the intervention is expected to dominate usual care. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention generates more net benefit than usual care is 0.89. The model results are dependent on assumptions regarding the duration over which costs and effects of the intervention apply, the impact of the intervention on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted and the relationship between increased adherence and drug-prescribing levels.\\n \\n \\n \\n Number of exacerbations is a sensitive and valid measure of clinical change used in many trials. However, data collection of this outcome in this context was challenging and could have been subject to bias. It was not possible to measure baseline adherence accurately. It was not possible to quantify the impact of the intervention on the number of packs of medicines prescribed.\\n \\n \\n \\n We developed a feasible and acceptable intervention that was delivered to fidelity in the randomised controlled trial. We observed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of exacerbation rates over 12 months. We observed an increase in normative adherence levels in a disease where adherence levels are low. The magnitude of the increase in adherence may not have been large enough to affect exacerbations.\\n \\n \\n \\n Given the non-significant difference in the primary outcome, further research is required to explore why an increase in objective normative adherence did not reduce exacerbations and to develop interventions that reduce exacerbations.\\n \\n \\n \\n Work package 3.1: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13076797. Work packages 3.2 and 3.3: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55504164.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":32307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar09110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar09110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

囊性纤维化患者对吸入药物的依从性通常较低。目的是开发和评估成人囊性纤维化患者的干预措施,以提高其吸入药物的依从性。我们使用敏捷软件方法开发了一个在线平台。我们采用混合方法开发了一种行为改变干预措施,由干预医生实施。这些被整合为CFHealthHub干预措施。我们在两个囊性纤维化中心进行了一项可行性研究,包括一项随机对照试验和过程评估。我们采用开放标签、平行组随机对照试验评估干预措施,以常规护理为对照。参与者按1:1的比例随机分配到干预组或常规护理组。常规护理包括每3个月去一次诊所。我们在随机对照试验的同时进行了过程评估,包括保真度研究、定性访谈研究和中介分析。我们使用试验内和基于模型的分析进行了健康经济分析。这项随机对照试验在19个英国囊性纤维化中心进行。参与者是年龄≥16岁的囊性纤维化患者,在囊性纤维化登记册上,未进行肺移植或在活动移植名单上,能够同意且不使用干粉吸入器。囊性纤维化患者使用带有电子监测功能的雾化器。这将数据自动传输到数字平台。囊性纤维化患者和临床医生可以使用这些数据来监测依从性,包括通过移动应用程序(app)。CFHealthHub显示了依从性数据的图表以及教育和解决问题的信息。一位训练有素的干预医生帮助囊性纤维化患者解决他们的依从性问题。随机对照试验-在12个月的随访期间(主要结局),符合修订的Fuchs标准的肺恶化的调整发病率比;坚持百分比的变化;还有百分之百的人预测了1秒内的用力呼气量(关键的次要结果)。过程评价-干预交付的忠实度百分比,以及参与者和干预者对干预的看法。经济模型-每质量调整寿命年的增量成本。随机对照试验——608名参与者被随机分配到干预组(n = 305)或常规治疗组(n = 303)。据我们所知,这是在英国进行的最大的囊性纤维化随机对照试验。干预组调整后的每年恶化率(主要结局)为1.63,常规护理组为1.77(发病率比0.96,95%可信区间0.83 ~ 1.12;P = 0.638)。1年内,每周平均标准依从性的调整差异为9.5%(95%置信区间为8.6%至10.4%),有利于干预。12个月时预测的1秒用力呼气量(百分数)调整后的平均差值为1.4%(95%置信区间-0.2%至3.0%)。没有与干预相关的不良事件。过程评估-干预交付的保真度高,囊性纤维化患者可接受干预,参与干预的参与者[287/305(94%)参加了第一次干预访视],确定了预期的作用机制,随机对照试验地点之间的背景因素有所不同。对22名囊性纤维化患者和26名干预者的定性访谈发现,囊性纤维化患者欢迎客观的依从性数据,将其作为对自己和他人采取行动的证明,并重视他们与干预者建立的关系。经济模型-试验内分析表明,干预措施以每位患者865.91英镑的额外成本产生了0.01个额外的质量调整生命年,导致每个质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比为71,136英镑。由于时间跨度短,对此应谨慎解释。健康经济模型表明,干预预计将产生0.17个额外的质量调整生命年,并在一生(70年)的范围内节省1790英镑的成本;因此,干预预计将主导常规护理。假设每个质量调整生命年的支付意愿阈值为2万英镑,那么干预产生比常规护理更多净收益的概率为0.89。模型结果取决于以下假设:干预的成本和效果适用的持续时间、干预对预测的1秒用力呼气量(百分比)的影响以及依从性增加与药物处方水平之间的关系。在许多试验中,急性加重次数是衡量临床变化的一个敏感而有效的指标。 然而,在这种情况下收集这一结果的数据具有挑战性,并且可能存在偏见。不可能准确地测量基线依从性。无法量化干预措施对处方药品包装数量的影响。我们开发了一种可行且可接受的干预措施,在随机对照试验中达到了保真度。我们观察到12个月内加重率的主要转归没有统计学上的显著差异。我们观察到,在依从性水平较低的疾病中,规范依从性水平有所增加。依从性增加的幅度可能还不足以影响病情恶化。考虑到主要结果的不显著差异,需要进一步的研究来探索为什么客观规范依从性的增加并没有减少恶化,并开发减少恶化的干预措施。工作包3.1:当前对照试验ISRCTN13076797。工作包3.2和3.3:当前对照试验ISRCTN55504164。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)应用研究方案资助,并将全文发表在应用研究方案资助上;第9卷第11期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An intervention to support adherence to inhaled medication in adults with cystic fibrosis: the ACtiF research programme including RCT
People with cystic fibrosis frequently have low levels of adherence to inhaled medications. The objectives were to develop and evaluate an intervention for adults with cystic fibrosis to improve adherence to their inhaled medication. We used agile software methods to develop an online platform. We used mixed methods to develop a behaviour change intervention for delivery by an interventionist. These were integrated to become the CFHealthHub intervention. We undertook a feasibility study consisting of a pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation in two cystic fibrosis centres. We evaluated the intervention using an open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with usual care as the control. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to intervention or usual care. Usual care consisted of clinic visits every 3 months. We undertook a process evaluation alongside the randomised controlled trial, including a fidelity study, a qualitative interview study and a mediation analysis. We undertook a health economic analysis using both a within-trial and model-based analysis. The randomised controlled trial took place in 19 UK cystic fibrosis centres. Participants were people aged ≥ 16 years with cystic fibrosis, on the cystic fibrosis registry, not post lung transplant or on the active transplant list, who were able to consent and not using dry-powder inhalers. People with cystic fibrosis used a nebuliser with electronic monitoring capabilities. This transferred data automatically to a digital platform. People with cystic fibrosis and clinicians could monitor adherence using these data, including through a mobile application (app). CFHealthHub displayed graphs of adherence data as well as educational and problem-solving information. A trained interventionist helped people with cystic fibrosis to address their adherence. Randomised controlled trial – adjusted incidence rate ratio of pulmonary exacerbations meeting the modified Fuchs criteria over a 12-month follow-up period (primary outcome); change in percentage adherence; and per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (key secondary outcomes). Process evaluation – percentage fidelity to intervention delivery, and participant and interventionist perceptions of the intervention. Economic modelling – incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Randomised controlled trial – 608 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 303). To our knowledge, this was the largest randomised controlled trial in cystic fibrosis undertaken in the UK. The adjusted rate of exacerbations per year (primary outcome) was 1.63 in the intervention and 1.77 in the usual-care arm (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.12; p = 0.638) after adjustment for covariates. The adjusted difference in mean weekly normative adherence was 9.5% (95% confidence interval 8.6% to 10.4%) across 1 year, favouring the intervention. Adjusted mean difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted at 12 months was 1.4% (95% confidence interval –0.2% to 3.0%). No adverse events were related to the intervention. Process evaluation – fidelity of intervention delivery was high, the intervention was acceptable to people with cystic fibrosis, participants engaged with the intervention [287/305 (94%) attended the first intervention visit], expected mechanisms of action were identified and contextual factors varied between randomised controlled trial sites. Qualitative interviews with 22 people with cystic fibrosis and 26 interventionists identified that people with cystic fibrosis welcomed the objective adherence data as proof of actions to self and others, and valued the relationship that they built with the interventionists. Economic modelling – the within-trial analysis suggests that the intervention generated 0.01 additional quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £865.91 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £71,136 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This should be interpreted with caution owing to the short time horizon. The health economic model suggests that the intervention is expected to generate 0.17 additional quality-adjusted life-years and cost savings of £1790 over a lifetime (70-year) horizon; hence, the intervention is expected to dominate usual care. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention generates more net benefit than usual care is 0.89. The model results are dependent on assumptions regarding the duration over which costs and effects of the intervention apply, the impact of the intervention on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted and the relationship between increased adherence and drug-prescribing levels. Number of exacerbations is a sensitive and valid measure of clinical change used in many trials. However, data collection of this outcome in this context was challenging and could have been subject to bias. It was not possible to measure baseline adherence accurately. It was not possible to quantify the impact of the intervention on the number of packs of medicines prescribed. We developed a feasible and acceptable intervention that was delivered to fidelity in the randomised controlled trial. We observed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of exacerbation rates over 12 months. We observed an increase in normative adherence levels in a disease where adherence levels are low. The magnitude of the increase in adherence may not have been large enough to affect exacerbations. Given the non-significant difference in the primary outcome, further research is required to explore why an increase in objective normative adherence did not reduce exacerbations and to develop interventions that reduce exacerbations. Work package 3.1: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13076797. Work packages 3.2 and 3.3: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55504164. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信