Literature DB >> 35086558

Training types associated with knowledge and experience in public health workers.

Zui Narita1, Yoshio Yamanouchi2, Kazuo Mishima3,4, Yoko Kamio5,6, Naoko Ayabe7, Ryoko Kakei8, Yoshiharu Kim9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Training non-specialist workers in mental healthcare improves knowledge, attitude, confidence, and recognition of mental illnesses. However, still little information is available on which type of mental health training is important in the improvement of these capacities.
METHODS: We studied web-based survey data of 495 public health workers to examine training types associated with knowledge and experience in supporting individuals with mental illness. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between a lack of knowledge and experience (outcome) and mental health training (exposure). We fitted three regression models. Model 1 evaluated unadjusted associations. Model 2 adjusted for age and sex. Model 3 adjusted for age, sex, years of experience, mental health full-time worker status, and community population. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were used.
RESULTS: For all training types, the association between a lack of knowledge and experience and mental health training attenuated as the model developed. In Model 3, a lack of knowledge and experience was significantly associated with training in specific illness (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93) and screening and assessment (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-0.99). Non-significant results were produced for training in counseling, psychosocial support, collaborative work, and law and regulation in Model 3.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the present study provides meaningful information that training in specific illness and screening and assessment may lead to knowledge and experience of public health workers. Further studies should employ a longitudinal design and validated measurements.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Community mental health; Primary care; Public health; Training course

Year:  2022        PMID: 35086558      PMCID: PMC8792519          DOI: 10.1186/s13690-022-00788-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Public Health        ISSN: 0778-7367


Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic highlights the importance of mental illness as one of the significant causes of disability and the global burden of disease [1-4]. Mental illness has the longest years lived with disability and is the same level as cardiovascular and circulatory diseases in disability-adjusted life-years [5]. Across all regions of the world, mental illness is highly prevalent and affecting individuals [6]. Approximately one-fifth of individuals in a general population experiences 12-month mental illness [6]. Previous data suggested that the global direct and indirect economic costs of mental illness were estimated at US$2.5 trillion [7]. Thus, adequate management of mental illness is crucial for social recovery in the post-COVID-19 era. These decades have seen significant changes of mental health care in many countries worldwide [8]. Of these, the development of community-based care was one of the essential changes [8, 9]. In communities, non-specialist workers, such as primary care and public health workers, need to manage individuals with mental illness. Integrating mental health services at the primary care level is the most viable way to decrease the treatment gap and ensure that people undergo the mental health care they need [10]. Certain skills and competencies are required to assess, diagnose, treat, support, and refer individuals with mental illness. Therefore, non-specialist workers need to be adequately prepared and supported in their mental health work [10, 11]. The World Health Organization (WHO) Mental Health Action Plan (2013–2020) and the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) recommended adequate training in non-specialist workers in diagnosing and treating mental illness [12, 13]. This is specifically of relevance in communities with small or previously non-existent budgets for mental health [14]. Previous studies with a pre-post design showed significant effects of mental health training on non-specialist workers’ knowledge, attitude, confidence, and recognition of mental illnesses [15-19]. Moreover, a cluster-randomized controlled trial showed that training of non-specialist workers improved the detection of mental illnesses [20]. These effects of mental health training were also verified by a systematic review including 29 studies [14]. Nevertheless, still little information is available on which type of mental health training is important in the improvement of such capacities. Japan reportedly has a poor quality of community mental health [21, 22], and such information is crucial to improve the mental health service. In the present study, we studied web-based survey data of 495 public health workers in Japan to examine training types associated with knowledge and experience in supporting individuals with mental illness.

Methods

Sample

We analyzed data from public health workers working at community health care centers in Japan who underwent a cross-sectional web-based survey. The survey was administered from 8 January to 28 February 2018 using SurveyMonkey software. Participants were recruited by the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry. We mailed letters to managers of all 589 health care centers in Japan. Next, each manager distributed the letters to public health workers in the health care center. The letter showed the URL of the survey so that each participant could access it. Note that we only included certified individuals such as public health nurses or social workers. A total of 643 public health workers agreed to participate. Of these, 495 public health workers (77.0%) completed the survey. Details of participants’ professional backgrounds are shown in Supplementary Table S1. The survey was approved by the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Institutional Review Board (A2018–097). All participants provided written informed consent.

Lack of knowledge and experience

Participants self-reported if they had a lack of knowledge and experience enough to support individuals with mental illness. They were asked to select one of seven response options regarding how much percentage of cases they had a lack of knowledge and experience: (1) 100–80%, (2) 79–60%, (3) 59–40%, (4) 39–20%, (5) seldom, (6) not at all, or (7) not sure. Endorsing (1), (2), or (3) was regarded as a lack of knowledge and experience.

Mental health training

Participants self-reported which type of mental health training they underwent. They were asked to select all that apply from six response options: (1) specific illness, (2) screening and assessment, (3) counseling, (4) psychosocial support, (5) collaborative work, or (6) law and regulation. We included the components featured in the mhGAP Intervention Guide [23]. For instance, the mhGAP Intervention Guide recommends contacting legal resources in a situation of maltreatment, abuse, and neglect [23].

Sociodemographic factors

Sociodemographic factors that may confound the relationship between each training and knowledge and experience were included in analyses as covariates. Participants self-reported sociodemographic factors, including age (29 years or younger, 30–39 years, 40–49 years, 50 years or older), sex, years of experience, mental health full-time worker status (yes/no), community population (50,000 or smaller, 50,000-200,000, 200,000-500,000, 500,000-1000,000, 1000,000 or larger). Years of experience and mental-health full-time worker status were adjusted for since they may be linked to a higher chance of having training and more knowledge and experience. Community population was included because the relationship to community individuals may be associated with training’s success [24]. Years of education were not adjusted for as all participants had at least a college degree.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted by using R version 4.1.0. Baseline characteristics of participants who lacked knowledge and experience and those who did not were compared using independent-sample t-tests and chi-square tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between a lack of knowledge and experience (outcome) and mental health training (exposure). We fitted three regression models. Model 1 evaluated unadjusted associations. Model 2 adjusted for age and sex. Model 3 adjusted for age, sex, years of experience, mental health full-time worker status, and community population. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were used to acquire an accurate estimation [25-27]. In conducting bootstrap CIs, the size of the bootstrap sample was set at 1000 with 95% CIs [28]. The significance level was set at a p-value less than 0.05.

Results

Baseline characteristics

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of participants. A total of 308 participants (62.2%) reported a lack of knowledge and experience. Individuals with a lack of knowledge and experience showed fewer years of experience (p <  0.001), lower proportion of mental health full-time workers (p = 0.001), training in specific illness (p <  0.001), screening and assessment (p = 0.005), psychosocial support (p = 0.03), and law and regulation (p = 0.001). Two groups significantly differed in age (p <  0.001), i.e., individuals with a lack of knowledge and experience were more likely to be 39 years or younger and less likely to be 40 years or older. No significant difference was shown in sex, community population, and training in counseling and collaborative work. Training in specific illness was most frequently reported in both groups (68.8 and 82.3%, respectively). Details of training in specific illness are shown in Supplementary Table S2.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of study participants

CharacteristicOverall (n = 495)Lack of knowledge and experienceP value
Yes (n = 308)No (n = 187)
Sex, No. (%)a0.08
 Male87 (17.6)47 (15.4)40 (21.5)
 Female405 (81.8)259 (84.6)146 (78.5)
Age, No. (%)b<  0.001
 -2991 (18.4)77 (25.0)14 (7.5)
 30–39148 (29.9)99 (32.1)49 (26.3)
 40–49138 (27.9)78 (25.3)60 (32.3)
 50-117 (23.6)54 (17.5)63 (33.9)
Years of experience, mean (SD), y15.7 (10.3)13.2 (9.6)19.5 (10.3)<  0.001
Mental health full-time worker, No. (%)c=0.001
 No297 (60.0)202 (66.2)95 (51.4)
 Yes193 (38.9)103 (33.8)90 (48.6)
Community population, No. (%)d
 -50,000176 (35.6)120 (39.0)56 (30.1)0.09
 50,000-200,000168 (33.9)106 (34.4)62 (33.3)
 200,000-500,00075 (15.2)42 (13.6)33 (17.7)
 500,000-1000,00038 (7.7)17 (5.5)21 (11.3)
 1000,000-36 (7.2)22 (7.1)14 (7.5)
Training type, No. (%)
 Specific illness365 (73.7)212 (68.8)153 (82.3)<  0.001
 Screening and assessment127 (25.7)72 (23.4)55 (34.9)0.005
 Counseling317 (64.0)191 (62.0)126 (67.7)0.20
 Psychosocial support173 (34.9)97 (31.5)76 (40.9)0.03
 Collaborative work226 (45.7)135 (43.8)91 (48.9)0.27
 Law and regulation171 (34.5)90 (29.2)81 (43.5)0.001

a Missing data for three participants

b Missing data for one participant

c Missing data for five participants

d Missing data for two participants

Baseline characteristics of study participants a Missing data for three participants b Missing data for one participant c Missing data for five participants d Missing data for two participants

Relationship between knowledge and experience and training types

Table 2 summarizes the results of multivariable logistic regression analyses. For all training types, the association between a lack of knowledge and experience and mental health training attenuated as the model developed (i.e., odds ratios were lowest in Model 1 and highest in Model 3). In Model 3, a lack of knowledge and experience was significantly associated with training in specific illness (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.93) and screening and assessment (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39–0.99). Training in psychosocial support and law and regulation showed a statistical significance in Model 1 and Model 2, which disappeared in Model 3. Non-significant results were produced for training in counseling and collaborative work in all Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3.
Table 2

Associations between a lack of knowledge and experience and mental health training

Lack of knowledge and experienceOdds ratio[95% confidence interval]
Model 1, unadjusted
 Training type
  Specific illness0.48** [0.30–0.75]
  Screening and assessment0.57** [0.37–0.86]
  Counseling0.78 [0.53–1.15]
  Psychosocial support0.67* [0.45–0.98]
  Collaborative work0.81 [0.56–1.19]
  Law and regulation0.54** [0.37–0.79]
Model 2, adjusted for age and sex
 Training type
  Specific illness0.51** [0.31–0.84]
  Screening and assessment0.63* [0.41–0.96]
  Counseling0.83 [0.56–1.25]
  Psychosocial support0.67 [0.45–1.01]
  Collaborative work0.94 [0.64–1.38]
  Law and regulation0.63* [0.42–0.93]
Model 3, adjusted or age, sex, years of experience, full-time worker status, and community population
 Training type
  Specific illness0.54* [0.32–0.93]
  Screening and assessment0.63* [0.39–0.99]
  Counseling0.76 [0.49–1.19]
  Psychosocial support0.73 [0.47–1.13]
  Collaborative work0.98 [0.65–1.48]
  Law and regulation0.73 [0.47–1.13]

⁎ p < 0.05

⁎⁎ p < 0.01

Associations between a lack of knowledge and experience and mental health training ⁎ p < 0.05 ⁎⁎ p < 0.01

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the efficacy of specific types of mental health training in public health workers in Japan. Among various types of mental health training, training in specific illness and screening and assessment was significantly associated with the sense of knowledge and experience after the adjustment of various potential confounders. These findings are in line with past reports showing significant effects of mental health training on non-specialist workers’ capacities, e.g., knowledge and recognition of mental illnesses [15-20]. The present study may provide information improving the management of mental illness, which is specifically crucial for social recovery in the post-COVID-19 era. Although our finding is based on the data from a Japanese sample and may not be readily generalizable to other countries, the present study implies that the concept−/assessment-oriented training may enhance public health workers’ capacities. Indeed, the mhGAP intervention guide for non-specialist workers recommends conducting an assessment as an essential clinical practice in mental health [23]. Our finding supports this recommendation from the viewpoint of training efficacy. To note, training in specific illness and screening and assessment may improve knowledge directly related to each mental illness, which may lead to the confidence of public health workers. Japan has the highest number of psychiatric beds per capita in the world [29], which may co-occur with polypharmacy and long-term hospitalization [30, 31]. Hospital discharge and transition to the communities have been warranted to achieve patient-centered care [32]. To achieve this, the “Reform Vision of Mental Health and Welfare” was released in 2004 [33]. However, Japan still has long-term psychiatric hospitalization (mean, 265.8 days) as of 2019 [34], partly resulting from insufficient community support [22, 35]. The potential approach to improve public health workers’ capacities shown in the present study may have clinical implications in enhancing the quality of community mental health in Japan.

Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged here. First, a lack of knowledge and experience was measured in a subjective manner, which may not reflect the actual capacity of public health workers. It may have been vulnerable to recall and social desirability biases. Second, both a lack of knowledge and experience and mental health training were self-reported via a single-item questionnaire. The cut-off for having a lack of knowledge and experience was arbitrary. Future studies should employ validated measurements to address these issues. Third, this study is based on cross-sectional web-based survey data that does not ascertain the temporal order of events or make causal inferences. Studies with longitudinal data are warranted to understand the causal relationship. Fourth, it is unclear if public health workers’ subjective knowledge and experience result in an improved outcome for patients with mental illness. Finally, our models aimed to adjust for confounding between training types and knowledge and experience rather than to maximize the overall goodness-of-fit, and thus should not be used for prediction.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, we believe that the present study provides meaningful information that training in specific illness and screening and assessment may lead to knowledge and experience of public health workers. Further studies should employ a longitudinal design and validated measurements. Additional file 1.
  27 in total

1.  Human resources for mental health care: current situation and strategies for action.

Authors:  Ritsuko Kakuma; Harry Minas; Nadja van Ginneken; Mario R Dal Poz; Keshav Desiraju; Jodi E Morris; Shekhar Saxena; Richard M Scheffler
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-10-16       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Statistical aspects of psychiatric inpatient care in Japan: Based on a comprehensive nationwide survey of psychiatric hospitals conducted from 1996 to 2012.

Authors:  Hisateru Tachimori; Tadashi Takeshima; Toshiaki Kono; Masato Akazawa; Xianghua Zhao
Journal:  Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.188

3.  Barriers to mental health care in Japan: Results from the World Mental Health Japan Survey.

Authors:  Akiko Kanehara; Maki Umeda; Norito Kawakami
Journal:  Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 5.188

4.  Institutionalisation and schizophrenia in Japan: social environments and negative symptoms: Nationwide survey of in-patients.

Authors:  Iwao Oshima; Yoshio Mino; Yoshimasa Inomata
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.319

Review 5.  The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980-2013.

Authors:  Zachary Steel; Claire Marnane; Changiz Iranpour; Tien Chey; John W Jackson; Vikram Patel; Derrick Silove
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 7.196

6.  The Work Experience of Newly Recruited Male Nurses during COVID-19:A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Huiyue Zhou; Xin Wang; Ruofei Du; Xiang Cheng; Kexin Zheng; Shiqi Dong; Justin Henri; Changying Chen; Tao Wang
Journal:  Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci)       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.085

7.  A mental health training program for community health workers in India: impact on knowledge and attitudes.

Authors:  Gregory Armstrong; Michelle Kermode; Shoba Raja; Sujatha Suja; Prabha Chandra; Anthony F Jorm
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Syst       Date:  2011-08-05

8.  Mental health training program for community mental health staff in Guangzhou, China: effects on knowledge of mental illness and stigma.

Authors:  Jie Li; Juan Li; Yuanguang Huang; Graham Thornicroft
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Syst       Date:  2014-12-04

9.  WHO guidance on mental health training: a systematic review of the progress for non-specialist health workers.

Authors:  Alexandra Caulfield; Deniz Vatansever; Gabriel Lambert; Tine Van Bortel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Authors:  Christopher J L Murray; Theo Vos; Rafael Lozano; Mohsen Naghavi; Abraham D Flaxman; Catherine Michaud; Majid Ezzati; Kenji Shibuya; Joshua A Salomon; Safa Abdalla; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Ilana Ackerman; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Mohammed K Ali; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Adil N Bahalim; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Lope H Barrero; David H Bartels; Maria-Gloria Basáñez; Amanda Baxter; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Eduardo Bernabé; Kavi Bhalla; Bishal Bhandari; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; James A Black; Hannah Blencowe; Jed D Blore; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Audrey Bonaventure; Soufiane Boufous; Rupert Bourne; Michel Boussinesq; Tasanee Braithwaite; Carol Brayne; Lisa Bridgett; Simon Brooker; Peter Brooks; Traolach S Brugha; Claire Bryan-Hancock; Chiara Bucello; Rachelle Buchbinder; Geoffrey Buckle; Christine M Budke; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Roy Burstein; Bianca Calabria; Benjamin Campbell; Charles E Canter; Hélène Carabin; Jonathan Carapetis; Loreto Carmona; Claudia Cella; Fiona Charlson; Honglei Chen; Andrew Tai-Ann Cheng; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Manu Dahiya; Nabila Dahodwala; James Damsere-Derry; Goodarz Danaei; Adrian Davis; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Robert Dellavalle; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Sarah Derrett; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; Mukesh Dherani; Cesar Diaz-Torne; Helen Dolk; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Karen Edmond; Alexis Elbaz; Suad Eltahir Ali; Holly Erskine; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Stalin E Ewoigbokhan; Farshad Farzadfar; Valery Feigin; David T Felson; Alize Ferrari; Cleusa P Ferri; Eric M Fèvre; Mariel M Finucane; Seth Flaxman; Louise Flood; Kyle Foreman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Belinda J Gabbe; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Hammad A Ganatra; Bianca Garcia; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Gerhard Gmel; Diego Gonzalez-Medina; Richard Gosselin; Rebecca Grainger; Bridget Grant; Justina Groeger; Francis Guillemin; David Gunnell; Ramyani Gupta; Juanita Haagsma; Holly Hagan; Yara A Halasa; Wayne Hall; Diana Haring; Josep Maria Haro; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Hideki Higashi; Catherine Hill; Bruno Hoen; Howard Hoffman; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; John J Huang; Sydney E Ibeanusi; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Deborah Jarvis; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Jost B Jonas; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Norito Kawakami; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Charles H King; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Francine Laden; Ratilal Lalloo; Laura L Laslett; Tim Lathlean; Janet L Leasher; Yong Yi Lee; James Leigh; Daphna Levinson; Stephen S Lim; Elizabeth Limb; John Kent Lin; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Wei Liu; Maria Loane; Summer Lockett Ohno; Ronan Lyons; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Reza Malekzadeh; Leslie Mallinger; Sivabalan Manivannan; Wagner Marcenes; Lyn March; David J Margolis; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; Neil McGill; John McGrath; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Michele Meltzer; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Ana-Claire Meyer; Valeria Miglioli; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Philip B Mitchell; Charles Mock; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Terrie E Moffitt; Ali A Mokdad; Lorenzo Monasta; Marcella Montico; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Andrew Moran; Lidia Morawska; Rintaro Mori; Michele E Murdoch; Michael K Mwaniki; Kovin Naidoo; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Paul K Nelson; Robert G Nelson; Michael C Nevitt; Charles R Newton; Sandra Nolte; Paul Norman; Rosana Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Simon O'Hanlon; Casey Olives; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Andrew Page; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Scott B Patten; Neil Pearce; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; Konrad Pesudovs; David Phillips; Michael R Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; Sébastien Pion; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Suzanne Polinder; C Arden Pope; Svetlana Popova; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Martin Prince; Rachel L Pullan; Kapa D Ramaiah; Dharani Ranganathan; Homie Razavi; Mathilda Regan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Kathryn Richardson; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Carolyn Robinson; Felipe Rodriguez De Leòn; Luca Ronfani; Robin Room; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Sukanta Saha; Uchechukwu Sampson; Lidia Sanchez-Riera; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; James Graham Scott; Maria Segui-Gomez; Saeid Shahraz; Donald S Shepard; Hwashin Shin; Rupak Shivakoti; David Singh; Gitanjali M Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Jessica Singleton; David A Sleet; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Jennifer L Smith; Nicolas J C Stapelberg; Andrew Steer; Timothy Steiner; Wilma A Stolk; Lars Jacob Stovner; Christopher Sudfeld; Sana Syed; Giorgio Tamburlini; Mohammad Tavakkoli; Hugh R Taylor; Jennifer A Taylor; William J Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; W Murray Thomson; George D Thurston; Imad M Tleyjeh; Marcello Tonelli; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Miltiadis K Tsilimbaris; Clotilde Ubeda; Eduardo A Undurraga; Marieke J van der Werf; Jim van Os; Monica S Vavilala; N Venketasubramanian; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; David J Weatherall; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; Marc G Weisskopf; Myrna M Weissman; Richard A White; Harvey Whiteford; Natasha Wiebe; Steven T Wiersma; James D Wilkinson; Hywel C Williams; Sean R M Williams; Emma Witt; Frederick Wolfe; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Anita K M Zaidi; Zhi-Jie Zheng; David Zonies; Alan D Lopez; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.