FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1713620072> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1713620072 endingPage "188" @default.
• W1713620072 startingPage "177" @default.
• W1713620072 abstract "This article takes a human rights perspective with a view to articulating the infant's perspective when the infant has been subjected to abuse, neglect, or both and is reliant on the state to ensure his or her health and well-being. When a young child is removed from parental care, important and often difficult decisions have to be made about subsequent contact between child and parent. We consider a number of dilemmas which may arise for practitioners when they are assisting child welfare decision makers in relation to contact, and acknowledge the limited empirical follow-up studies of the impact of child welfare practice and legal decisions on infant outcomes. We draw on the significant and substantive evidence base about infant emotional and cognitive development and infant–parent attachment relationships as well as infant mental health to illuminate the infant's subjective experience in these practice dilemmas. We describe innovations in practice from various countries, which seek to shed light on the challenges often associated with contact. Este artículo asume una perspectiva de derechos humanos con un punto de vista para articular la perspectiva del infante cuando éste ha sido sujeto de abuso y/o negligencia y depende del estado para asegurar su salud y bienestar. Cuando un niño es separado del cuidado de su(s) progenitor(es), hay decisiones importantes y a menudo difíciles que se deben tomar acerca del contacto subsecuente entre niño y progenitor(es). Consideramos un número de dilemas que pudieran surgir para los profesionales cuando ellos asisten a quienes toman las decisiones sobre el bienestar del niño en relación con el contacto, y reconocemos los limitados estudios empíricos de seguimiento que tiene el impacto de la práctica profesional de protección al niño y las decisiones legales sobre los resultados en el niño. Hacemos uso de la significativa y sustanciosa base de evidencia acerca del desarrollo emocional y cognitivo del infante y las relaciones afectivas entre infante y progenitor(es), así como la salud mental del infante para dar luz a la experiencia subjetiva del infante en cuanto a estos dilemas de la práctica profesional. Describimos innovaciones puestas en práctica en varios países, lo cual busca dar luz acerca de los retos a menudo asociados con el contacto. Cet article prend la perspective des droits de l'homme dans le but d'articuler la perspective du bébé lorsque le bébé a été soumis à un abus et/ou négligé et dépend de l'état pour sa santé et son bien-être. Lorsqu'un jeune enfant est retiré du soin parental des décisions importantes et souvent difficiles doivent être prises pour ce qui concerne le contact subséquent entre l'enfant et le parent. Nous examinons ici un nombre de dilemmes qui peuvent se présenter pour les professionnels lorsqu'ils assistent les personnes chargées de prendre les décisions pour le bien-être de l'enfant pour ce qui concerne le contact, et nous reconnaissons les études empiriques limitées de l'impact des pratiques et des décisions légales sur les résultats pour le bébé. Nous comptons sur les grandes et importantes connaissances du développement émotionnel du bébé et du développment cognitif basées sur l'évidence et des relations d'attachement bébé parent, ainsi que sur la santé mentale du nourrisson pour illuminer l'expérience subjective du bébé dans ces dilemmes de pratique. Nous décrivons des innovations dans la pratique, venues de divers pays, qui cherchent à faire la lumière sur les défis souvent liés au contact. Diese Arbeit nimmt eine Menschrechtsperspektive unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Artikulation der Perspektive des Säuglings ein, wenn dieser Misshandlung und/oder Vernachlässigung erfahren hat und auf den Staat angewiesen ist, um Gesundheit und Wohlergehen zu gewährleisten. Wenn einem jungen Kind die elterliche Fürsorge entzogen wird, müssen meist schwierige Entscheidungen über den nachfolgenden Kontakt zwischen Kind und Elternteil getroffen werden. Es werden eine Reihe von Dilemmata erwogen, die für Praktiker entstehen können, wenn Sie Entscheidungsträgern der Wohlfahrt bezüglich Kontakt beraten, unter Berücksichtigung der limitierten Follow-Up Studien, die den Einfluss von Kinderwohlfahrtspraxis und rechtlichen Entscheidungen auf die Kindesentwicklung überprüfen. Wir bauen auf der signifikanten und erheblichen Evidenzbasis zur emotionalen und kognitiven Säuglingsentwicklung und zur elterlichen Bindungsbeziehung sowie zur psychischen Gesundheit im Säuglingsalter auf, um die subjektive Erfahrung des Säuglings in diesen Praxisdilemmata zu erhellen. Wir beschreiben Innovationen in der Praxis mehrerer Länder, die anstreben die Herausforderungen im Hinblick auf Kontakt zu verdeutlichen. 抄録：この論文は、乳児が虐待および／あるいはネグレクトを受けていて、健康と福祉を保証するために州に依存している時、乳児の視点をはっきりと述べる観点を持って、人権の視点を取る。幼い子どもが親の養育から離されるとき、その後の子どもと親との接触contactについて、重要でしばしば困難な決定をしなくてはならない。接触との関連で子どもの福祉の決定をする人を臨床家が援助しているとき、臨床家に起きるかもしれない多くのジレンマを、私たちは考慮する。そして子どもの福祉の実践と法的な決定が乳児の発達に与える影響についての経験的な追跡が限られていることを認める。乳児の情緒的認知的発達と乳児と親の愛着関係についての、そして乳幼児精神保健についての重要で実質的な実証の基礎を、これらの臨床のジレンマにおける乳児の主観的な体験を明らかにするために、われわれは利用する。私たちはさまざまな国から臨床における革新を記述する。それらは接触にしばしば伴う困難な問題を浮き彫りにしようとつとめている。 Some of the most challenging issues in child welfare practice arise in the dilemma of ensuring that an infant removed from his or her parent's care is provided with a secure attachment and caregiving relationship with someone who is not their biological parent while also working to ensure that the best possible circumstances are provided for the infant to have an ongoing meaningful relationship or to be united with their parents when this is in the infant's best interests. One of the most contested issues internationally is how frequent contact with parents should be for very young infants in out-of-home care. A simplistic rendition of attachment theory is often used to justify arrangements that are extremely onerous for infants, such as visiting 7 days a week with biological parents. Infant mental health practitioners are often called upon for consultation on these difficult decisions. Practitioners may be asked to evaluate children and families for the child welfare system or for the courts and to render an opinion about the best interests of a child who is residing in foster care. There is sparse empirical or clinical literature to guide practitioners in conducting such evaluations and assisting with decision making. In this article, we offer insights about visitation between parents and their young children who are residing in foster care due to maltreatment or severe neglect. We draw from our experiences in consulting to the child welfare systems in four nations [Australia, Canada (Province of Quebec), Scotland, and the United States]. While there are certainly differences, we have observed many similar challenges across these developed countries, which have the intention and resources capable of serving the best interests of maltreated children. All of these countries have overloaded foster care systems, with a substantial proportion of children in foster care under the age of 5 years. Further, the number of children under the age of 5 years in care has increased dramatically over the last decade (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System [AFCARS], 2009; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2009; The Scottish Government, 2011). We use the human rights perspective employed by our Australian colleagues as a framework for viewing practice dilemmas in child welfare. A brief review of the needs of infants in out-of-home care is provided first. We then consider parent–child contact as the context in which many policies and practices intersect and where, too often, the needs and best interests of young, traumatized children in care, including safety; physical, developmental and psychological well-being; attachment security; stability; and permanency planning, are not being adequately addressed. We also discuss the challenges of educating and consulting to child welfare staff and the courts about basic infant mental health concepts to consider when making decisions regarding the amount of contact infants have with their birth parents. We report case studies from Canada, Scotland, and the United States to illustrate the challenges faced by clinicians, mental health programs serving young children in foster care, the child welfare systems, and the courts when prioritizing the needs of infants while evaluating the merits of trying to reunify the particular family. Throughout the article, we make recommendations for infant mental health practitioners who consult to child welfare staff about structuring and facilitating high-quality visits so that the visits may act as evaluation tools in making case plan decisions and, when indicated, maintaining or establishing an optimal bond between infant and parent. We conclude with a discussion of what is not yet known about the experiences of young children in foster care. In their Australian Institute of Family Studies article, Jordan and Sketchley (2009) considered the needs of young children in foster care from a human rights perspective. A human rights perspective views child maltreatment as a violation of the child's rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children in 1989 described the civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights of children. They include rights to participation and provision in addition to the right to protection. Thus, all children have the right to experience the conditions for optimal health, growth, and development and that society has an obligation to ensure that parents have the necessary resources to raise children (Reading et al., 2008). The guiding principles include, but are not limited to, the best interest of the child; the other principles are nondiscrimination, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child (Webb, Horrocks, Crowley, & Lessof, 2009). The articles of the convention are not abstract ideals but can be translated into specific interventions and policy objectives and inform ethical decision making in child welfare practice (Reading et al., 2008). They are legal obligations in signatory countries, and the idea of abuse as a violation of the child's rights can strengthen the position of the infant in the context of societal ambivalence about ensuring that the interests of children take precedence over the ideology of the family or the rights of parents. This article explores this translation for infants in out-of-home care. Jordan and Sketchley (2009) argued that a human rights perspective means that decision making for infants in out-of-home care should consider the subjective experience of infants. As cogently argued by Gauthier, Fortin, and Jeliu (2004), even if parents do overcome their difficulties, from a human rights perspective the best interests of the child means that reunification or visiting schedules should not be a “prize for parent's rehabilitation.” This perspective can ensure infants’ needs are a priority in decision making when encountering child welfare practice dilemmas and when practitioners are asked to assist with resolving such dilemmas. “Articulating the infant's perspective” means communicating key information to the parties involved so that they can appreciate, for example, the extent to which babies are still developing the capacity for emotional regulation and self-soothing in the first few weeks and months of life, and are highly reliant on the sensitive and emotionally available presence of their caregiver (Brazelton & Cramer, 1990). Most can tolerate only brief periods of separation from their primary caregiver, who, for maltreated infants in care, is usually the foster parent. This is especially true if a baby's capacity for self-regulation is compromised in any way (e.g., by being medically fragile, suffering withdrawal from opiates at birth, or having persistent crying or feeding difficulties). In these instances, the baby's own body might be experienced as being unpredictable so that they are especially reliant on the continuous, predictable responses from their caregiver to be not so frightened and to develop confidence that they will get over their upset. These processes of interactive emotional regulation and the development of emotional security have often been severely disrupted by the neglect or maltreatment, which has led to the infant being placed in out-of-home care. It is critical that visiting schedules do not involve unmanageable separations from the foster caregiver that will undermine the developing relationship and cause emotional distress or further traumatise the infant. Maltreatment and the often repeated separations from caregivers mean that infants and toddlers who are placed in out-of-home care are at increased risk of mental health disorders. Little empirical research exists concerning the experiences of infants residing in foster care. The studies that do exist focus on needs such as attachment or developmental (e.g., Smyke, Zeanah, Fox, Nelson, & Guthrie, 2010) or behavioral and emotional symptomatology (Ghera et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2009). A recent article in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP) reviewed the emotional, behavioral, neurobiological, and social vulnerabilities of children in care as well as evidenced-based interventions that promote resilience (Leve et al., 2012). The authors discussed two important factors, placement disruption and prenatal exposure to substance abuse, which contribute to negative outcomes for children in care. However, there are few guidelines for how to use the existing research on the needs of young foster children to make decisions that optimize outcomes. On the other hand, a great deal of fundamental, scientifically established knowledge about infant development exists that can help guide decision making by infant mental health, child welfare, and legal practitioners. In this article, we illustrate how this knowledge can be applied by practitioners to understand the needs of young children in foster care and to assist child welfare workers and courts in making decisions specifically about contact with birth parents. There is an abundance of research on attachment development that is certainly applicable when considering the needs of young children, but it is beyond the scope of this article to review this entire body of studies. On occasion, attachment theory is appropriately invoked by child welfare and court officials to explain infants’ needs for ongoing contact with their parents. However, Bowlby (1969) also drew attention to the way in which attachment behaviors and exploratory behaviors are complementary. If feeling overtaxed or stressed, attachment behaviors (clinging, crying) escalate, and exploratory behaviors shut down. From this perspective, the arrangements for infants to visit their parents need to ensure that the infants are feeling as secure as possible, alert, awake, and happy for them to have the curiosity and emotional energy to invest in getting to know and to interact with their parents. This is especially true if the parents have never been the primary caregiver for the infant. In addition to attachment research, recent infant development discoveries shed light on the decision-making process regarding contact with birth parents for young children in out-of-home care. Over the last few decades, “still face” experiments and research on neonatal imitation have demonstrated infants’ capacity for primary intersubjectivity (awareness of the feelings and motives of others) and their distress when the “rules” of reciprocal communication have been broken. A birth parent's attunement to the infant while visiting offers opportunity for promoting attachment and development. On the other hand, constant misreading of an infant's cues and misattributions of an infant's intent within an interaction are a significant source of stress for the infant (for case illustrations, see Ostler & Haight, 2011). Recent developments in neuroscience research, particularly the discovery of “mirror” neurons as the intention-detection center of our brains, highlight infants’ capacity to detect and be affected by the state of mind of the person with whom they are interacting (Meltzoff & Brooks, 2007; Stern, 2008). Moreover, developmental traumatology research has demonstrated that the architecture of the infant brain—and subsequently, cognitive and affective functioning—are affected by early life stress (Pechtel & Pizzagalli, 2011). Thus, being in the presence of an adult whose state of mind is very disturbed—whether hostile or harsh or belittling—risks having long-lasting impacts on a developing infant. In their review of the literature, Sen and Broadhurst (2011) evaluated the benefits of contact between children in care and their biological parents that have been claimed. They concluded that the correlations between contact and reunification and contact and placement stability are complicated by the variability of the circumstances of the child being in care. They also submitted that the impact of contact on developmental outcomes of children is not well-evidenced. They suggested that it is not contact alone but the combination of contact with other family services that improves chances for reunification. The authors cautioned against making broad prescriptions for all children, given that circumstances are highly individualized. promotes healthy attachment and reduces negative impacts of separation for the child and parents, establishes and strengthens the parent–child relationship, eases the pain of separation and loss for the child and parent, keeps hope alive for the parents and enhances parents’ motivation to change, involves parents in their child's everyday activities and keeps them abreast of the child's development, helps parents gain confidence in their ability to care for their child and allows parents to learn and practice new skills, provides a setting for the caseworker or parenting coach to suggest how to improve parent–child interactions, allows foster parents to support birth parents and model positive parenting skills, provides information to the court on the family's progress (or lack of progress) towards their goals, facilitates family assessments and can help the court determine whether reunification is the best permanency option for the child, helps with the transition to reunification. (p. 6) Visits as ongoing evaluation and intervention opportunities. In some agencies or jurisdictions, child welfare workers use visits as opportunities to assess the parent–child relationship. These visits are typically scheduled regularly, with the understanding that the parent will address the circumstances that brought the child into care, such as mental health or substance abuse, between visits with his or her child. Unfortunately, visits often continue without the parents having made any meaningful progress on their individual issues and without intervention during the visits to support the child or the relationship. Because the infant–parent relationship is often unhealthy prior to placement, visits should be regarded as planned therapeutic intervention that offers an opportunity to heal a damaged relationship and therefore be resourced and evaluated with this framework in mind. The best outcome for infants would be ensured by visits being used as an opportunity to evaluate the strengths and concerns of the current relationship and, when indicated, being supported by skilled therapeutic intervention to heal the infant–parent relationship. Even when visits are intended for evaluation only, therapeutic intervention should be provided if it becomes clear that the infant is being harmed. This intervention may range from simple to sophisticated, depending on the needs of the dyad, and would offer relationship-building and emotional support for the child and parent during the visit. Ongoing assessment of progress and the demands on the infant would follow, given that the parent–child relationship is dynamic and evolving. As therapeutic visitation continues, reappraisal and reworking to a realistic and safe schedule should occur if the infant is distressed by the visits or the parent does not attend. Visit schedule and structure should be reviewed according to the infant's developmental stage, emotional development, and the dynamics of the infant's relationships with both the caregiving family and the parent. Infant mental health practitioners are well-informed to assist child welfare workers in considering the issues when planning and structuring contact. Any potential benefit of parent–child visiting will not automatically eventuate as a result of face-to-face contact alone. The infant's subjective experience will depend on a myriad of factors such as whether parents were ever the primary caregivers for the infant, the quality of interactions prior to removal, the distress involved in separation from the foster parent for the duration of the visit, and the likelihood of the infant returning to live with the birth parents. An Australian study by Humphreys and Kiraly (2009), in one state, reviewed the case files of all infants in care who were under 1 year of age. Thirty-four percent of these infants had court-ordered visiting of four to seven visits per week, but this was only sustainable by parents in half the cases due to their life circumstances. This study found that high-frequency visiting schedules were not associated with increased rates of reunification with parents 1 year later. The whole issue of quality of time versus frequency and length of time for visits needs careful thought. The optimal amount of contact after the initial transition to placement may well depend on what “costs” are involved in the visit. These include factors both surrounding the visit, such as separation from the new caregiver; lack of attachment figure during transport; and disruption to sleep, play, and other daily routines; and factors arising during the visit, such as misattuned or even distressing interactions with the parents and conflict between the parents. Many people have advocated for less frequent, longer blocks of time for the infant and parent to spend together, but the infant's subjective experience of such arrangements depends on the age of the infant, the infant's capacity for self-regulation, and the quality of interactions with the parents. A long block of time with parents means a longer block of time away from their secure base attachment figure (foster parent). Note that infants growing up in the community with their parents where there are no protective concerns, develop secure attachment relationships with grandparents over time on contacts as infrequent as once a week or less. Literature that has argued for frequent contact usually has acknowledged that there may be circumstances where visits should be ceased, such as if there is a risk that parents will physically or psychologically harm the child or if the visits are extremely traumatic for the child (Goldsmith, Oppenheim, & Wanlass, 2004; Haight, Kagle, & Black, 2003; Smariga, 2007). When parents have assaulted an infant, the mere presence of the parent has the potential to be a traumatic reminder. Particular states of mind in an infant (e.g., fear or terror) can be encoded as an implicit form of memory, and these states can be reactivated in the presence of the abusive parent (Berger & Rigaud, 2001; Lieberman, 2004; Siegel, 2001). Specific aspects of the parent's behavior, such as voice, body movement, or facial expression, can be a traumatic reminder that signals danger to the infant that an attack is imminent [Based on past experience, this is a realistic automatic appraisal by the infant (Lieberman, 2004).] In these circumstances, the infant's subjective experience is of being reminded and terrified of the terror and pain of abuse. Such visits are likely to cause emotional suffering, hypervigilance, and effects similar to the impact of the original abuse. These dangers are heightened when the visits occur without the infant having his or her primary caregiving adult (foster parent or kinship caregiver) present. A human rights perspective suggests that visits with parents should provide a benefit to the infant and no physical or emotional costs or risks for the child. Visiting arrangements also need to ensure that the infant has the best chance of recovery from abuse and neglect. Finally, designing optimal visiting arrangements for infants who will never return to live with their parents is a complex issue. A rights-based perspective requires us to ensure that the rights of infants who have been harmed by abuse and neglect take precedence over parents’ rights. Haight, Kagle, and Black (2003) proposed several excellent attachment-informed recommendations for child welfare policy and practice around planning and supporting parent visitation with their infants in care. First and foremost, they proposed that adequate attachment relationships between children and their foster and biological parents should be supported. They suggested supporting regular and frequent visitation for young children with their biological parents in a socially and culturally appropriate setting whenever reunification is a viable goal. The authors advised supporting parents and children before, during, and after visits. In addition, given that the child's primary attachment relationship may be with the foster parent due to the fact that she or he is providing the daily care to the child, they offered that foster parents play an important role in managing visits. To maintain this relationship, they suggested that social workers adequately prepare and support foster parents for providing corrective attachment experiences for children who need this. The authors acknowledged that there may be instances in which visits should be therapeutic, reduced, or suspended, for example, when a disorganized attachment relationship has been identified. Further, they suggested that priority should be placed on service plans for parents such as mental health or substance-abuse treatment and that visiting plans should be coordinated with progress in therapy. Even with these recommendations published nearly a decade ago, we have found that such practices are very difficult to implement in many jurisdictions. In our experience, the consideration of infant needs in planning for visitation is often inadequate or completely disregarded in favor of agency, parent, or court priorities. Infant visits with parents may be scheduled around agency needs (e.g., availability of staff to transport infant, practicalities of infants visiting in the morning to ensure afternoon slots are available for school-aged children, etc.) rather than being determined by the individual daily timetable of the infant. This reduces the potential benefit of visits, as the infant is likely to have his or her own biological rhythms disturbed to be put in the car and thus is less likely to be in the alert and calm state that promotes quality interaction with and responsiveness to parents during the visit. For example, when an infant is woken from sleep to be taken to a visit, he or she is likely to arrive tired and cranky, may be fed whether a feed is due or not, and may become so overwhelmed that he or she falls asleep to cope with the visit, which is unsatisfying for both infant and parents. Further, caseworkers are often hesitant to include foster parents to support infants during visits between children with their birth parents because of the fear or uncertainty around managing the birth parent's feelings about having time with their child “intruded upon” by the foster parent. Finally, suspension of visits may be indicated from the perspective of the child, but the approval of this may be delayed or rejected by the court system, which sometimes considers the rights of parents as paramount; consequently, children may be further harmed by continued contact with their parents. This is why “articulating the infant's perspective” to all involved is so important. Even though those involved are committed to helping children, we have found that communicating both the immediate and long-term needs of infants in foster care to child welfare workers and court officials is often challenging. Child welfare workers, on a daily basis, and the court, more globally, are in the position to either allow or prevent further harm to already vulnerable, traumatized infants. Workers often do not have the training necessary for assessing harm (especially emotional or psychological harm) from the perspective of the infant. In some parts of the United States, to become a child welfare worker requires simply a bachelor's degree in any field. Even for those who have obtained a degree in health or welfare, many undergraduate programs do not focus on typical infant development. This is the case internationally. Thus, there are large gaps in knowledge and understanding of infant development and the infant-sensitive practice that is required to work with families and infants to ensure their safety and well-being (Jordan & Sketchley, 2009). In addition, while those who make the decisions in the legal forum are necessarily well-informed about the law relating to children, they seldom have basic understanding of infant development or infant mental health. This knowledge gap poses an extremely precarious situation from the vantage point of the infants residing in foster care, as their well-being depends on decisions made in the here and now by their workers and judges. Some innovative developments, such as the infant/toddler “court teams” (ZERO TO THREE, 2006) established in several cities around the United States have begun to address this gap, but such models are the exception rather than usual practice in most jurisdictions around the wo" @default.
• W1713620072 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5004168948 @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5009293618 @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5014810212 @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5036100688 @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5037858401 @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5043257059 @default.
• W1713620072 creator A5045297915 @default.
• W1713620072 date "2013-02-19" @default.
• W1713620072 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W1713620072 title "Whose Rights Count? Negotiating Practice, Policy, and Legal Dilemmas Regarding Infant–Parent Contact When Infants are in Out‐of‐Home Care" @default.
• W1713620072 cites W1509777472 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W1837796659 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W1967280148 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W1984598396 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W1993266487 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2011903843 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2015564467 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2018289615 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2021432025 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2025348075 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2028135838 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2048033265 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2050331674 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2052827417 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2060587925 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2076063398 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2087863249 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2106155441 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2107032283 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2122827562 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2125676003 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2130134165 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2155873686 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2296166432 @default.
• W1713620072 cites W2533000545 @default.
• W1713620072 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21381" @default.
• W1713620072 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3787782" @default.
• W1713620072 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24098062" @default.
• W1713620072 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1713620072 type Work @default.
• W1713620072 sameAs 1713620072 @default.
• W1713620072 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722015 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722016 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722017 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722018 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722019 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722021 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722022 @default.
• W1713620072 countsByYear W17136200722023 @default.
• W1713620072 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5004168948 @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5009293618 @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5014810212 @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5036100688 @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5037858401 @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5043257059 @default.
• W1713620072 hasAuthorship W1713620072A5045297915 @default.
• W1713620072 hasBestOaLocation W17136200721 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConcept C199776023 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConceptScore W1713620072C15744967 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConceptScore W1713620072C159110408 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConceptScore W1713620072C17744445 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConceptScore W1713620072C199539241 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConceptScore W1713620072C199776023 @default.
• W1713620072 hasConceptScore W1713620072C71924100 @default.
• W1713620072 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1713620072 hasLocation W17136200721 @default.
• W1713620072 hasLocation W17136200722 @default.
• W1713620072 hasLocation W17136200723 @default.
• W1713620072 hasLocation W17136200724 @default.
• W1713620072 hasLocation W17136200725 @default.
• W1713620072 hasLocation W17136200726 @default.
• W1713620072 hasOpenAccess W1713620072 @default.
• W1713620072 hasPrimaryLocation W17136200721 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2030432987 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2085392219 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2109190650 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2414039708 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2521440074 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2753148101 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W1713620072 hasRelatedWork W4308145257 @default.
• W1713620072 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W1713620072 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1713620072 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1713620072 magId "1713620072" @default.
• W1713620072 workType "article" @default.