Search

Your search keyword '"Quaife, Samantha L."' showing total 235 results
Start Over Author "Quaife, Samantha L."
235 results on '"Quaife, Samantha L."'

4. Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme

Author

O'Dowd, Emma L, Lee, Richard W, Akram, Ahsan R, Bartlett, Emily C, Bradley, Stephen H, Brain, Kate, Callister, Matthew E J, Chen, Yan, Devaraj, Anand, Eccles, Sinan R, Field, John K, Fox, Jesme, Grundy, Seamus, Janes, Sam M, Ledson, Martin, MacKean, Melanie, Mackie, Anne, McManus, Kieran G, Murray, Rachael L, Nair, Arjun, Quaife, Samantha L, Rintoul, Robert, Stevenson, Anne, Summers, Yvonne, Wilkinson, Louise S, Booton, Richard, Baldwin, David R, and Crosbie, Philip

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

Author

Dickson, Jennifer L, Hall, Helen, Horst, Carolyn, Tisi, Sophie, Verghese, Priyam, Mullin, Anne-Marie, Teague, Jon, Farrelly, Laura, Bowyer, Vicky, Gyertson, Kylie, Bojang, Fanta, Levermore, Claire, Anastasiadis, Tania, McCabe, John, Navani, Neal, Nair, Arjun, Devaraj, Anand, Hackshaw, Allan, Quaife, Samantha L, and Janes, Sam M

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. 207 Exploring the experiences of rural and coastal people with lung cancer and their informal carers' in accessing and engaging in treatment: A qualitative interview study

Author

Cooke, Samuel, primary, Mitchinson, Lucy, additional, McInnerney, Daisy, additional, Quaife, Samantha L, additional, Pogson, Zara, additional, Skinner, Dawn, additional, Civello, Sarah, additional, Harding-Bell, Ava, additional, Kane, Ros, additional, Calman, Lynn, additional, Selby, Peter, additional, Januszewski, Adam, additional, Lapuente, Maria, additional, Reeves, Annie, additional, Ricketts, William, additional, Knowles, Brian, additional, Peake, Michael D, additional, and Nelson, David, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. 161 Healthcare professionals’ communication practices for disclosing LDCT-detected pulmonary nodules to patients undergoing surveillance

Author

Katsampouris, Evangelos, primary, Creamer, Andrew, additional, Prendecki, Ruth, additional, McInnerney, Daisy, additional, Clark, Elizabeth, additional, Dickson, Jennifer L., additional, Lee, Richard, additional, Janes, Samuel M., additional, Duffy, Stephen W., additional, and Quaife, Samantha L., additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. 165 Can Pathway Navigation increase lung cancer screening uptake? Protocol for a nested randomised controlled trial and process evaluation

Author

McInnerney, Daisy, primary, Simmonds, Irene, additional, Hancock, Neil, additional, Rogerson, Suzanne, additional, Lindop, Jason, additional, Gabe, Rhian, additional, Vulkan, Daniel, additional, Marshall, Catriona, additional, Crosbie, Philip AJ, additional, Callister, Matthew EJ, additional, and Quaife, Samantha L, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. 111 Patient, professional and carer experiences of communicating a lung cancer diagnosis: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

Author

Cooke, Samuel, primary, Gebre, Yordanos, additional, Clark, Jessica, additional, Arslan Argin, Aslihan, additional, Kane, Ros, additional, Quaife, Samantha L, additional, McInnerney, Daisy, additional, Mitchinson, Lucy, additional, Pogson, Zara, additional, Skinner, Dawn, additional, Civello, Sarah, additional, Harding-Bell, Ava, additional, Calman, Lynn, additional, Selby, Peter, additional, Knowles, Brian, additional, Peake, Michael D, additional, and Nelson, David, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study

Author

Tammemägi, Martin C, Ruparel, Mamta, Tremblay, Alain, Myers, Renelle, Mayo, John, Yee, John, Atkar-Khattra, Sukhinder, Yuan, Ren, Cressman, Sonya, English, John, Bedard, Eric, MacEachern, Paul, Burrowes, Paul, Quaife, Samantha L, Marshall, Henry, Yang, Ian, Bowman, Rayleen, Passmore, Linda, McWilliams, Annette, Brims, Fraser, Lim, Kuan Pin, Mo, Lin, Melsom, Stephen, Saffar, Bann, Teh, Mark, Sheehan, Ramon, Kuok, Yijin, Manser, Renee, Irving, Louis, Steinfort, Daniel, McCusker, Mark, Pascoe, Diane, Fogarty, Paul, Stone, Emily, Lam, David C L, Ng, Ming-Yen, Vardhanabhuti, Varut, Berg, Christine D, Hung, Rayjean J, Janes, Samuel M, Fong, Kwun, and Lam, Stephen

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Participant factors associated with psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening: A systematic review.

Author

McFadden, Kathleen, Nickel, Brooke, Rankin, Nicole M., Li, Tong, Jennett, Chloe J., Sharman, Ashleigh, Quaife, Samantha L., Houssami, Nehmat, and Dodd, Rachael H.

Abstract

Background: Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual‐level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement. Methods: Four databases were searched for full‐text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre‐registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Thirty‐five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre‐post (n = 13), cross‐sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed‐methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio‐economic group, not being married or co‐habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non‐significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation. Conclusion(s): Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study.

Author

Sarig, Katrina, Oxley, Samuel, Kalra, Ashwin, Sobocan, Monika, Fierheller, Caitlin T., Sideris, Michail, Gootzen, Tamar, Ferris, Michelle, Eeles, Rosalind A., Evans, D. Gareth, Quaife, Samantha L., and Manchanda, Ranjit

Abstract

Background 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. Methods Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-toone semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. Results 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/ approach; (2) healthcare professionals’ support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/ partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. Conclusions There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/ family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

20. Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

Author

McFadden, Kathleen, Rankin, Nicole M., Nickel, Brooke, Li, Tong, Jennett, Chloe J., Sharman, Ashleigh R., Quaife, Samantha L., Dodd, Rachael H., and Houssami, Nehmat

Subjects
EARLY detection of cancer, LUNG cancer, PSYCHOTHERAPY, PSYCHOSOCIAL factors, SMOKING cessation
Abstract

Objectives: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service‐level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. Methods: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full‐text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. Results: Thirty‐two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre‐post (n = 6), cross‐sectional (n = 12), mixed‐methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking‐related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. Conclusions: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real‐world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high‐value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

26. The SUMMIT Study: Utilising a written ‘Next Steps’ information booklet to prepare participants for potential lung cancer screening results and follow-up

Author

Bhamani, Amyn, primary, Horst, Carolyn, additional, Bojang, Fanta, additional, Quaife, Samantha L, additional, Dickson, Jennifer L, additional, Tisi, Sophie, additional, Hall, Helen, additional, Verghese, Priyam, additional, Creamer, Andrew, additional, Prendecki, Ruth, additional, McCabe, John, additional, Gyertson, Kylie, additional, Bowyer, Vicky, additional, El-Emir, Ethaar, additional, Cotton, Alice, additional, Mehta, Simranjit, additional, Levermore, Claire, additional, Mullin, Anne-Marie, additional, Teague, Jonathan, additional, Farrelly, Laura, additional, Nair, Arjun, additional, Devaraj, Anand, additional, Hackshaw, Allan, additional, and Janes, Sam M, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Utilisation of primary care electronic patient records for identification and targeted invitation of individuals to a lung cancer screening programme

Author

Dickson, Jennifer L., primary, Hall, Helen, additional, Horst, Carolyn, additional, Tisi, Sophie, additional, Verghese, Priyam, additional, Worboys, Sarah, additional, Perugia, Andrew, additional, Rusius, James, additional, Mullin, Anne-Marie, additional, Teague, Jonathan, additional, Farrelly, Laura, additional, Bowyer, Vicky, additional, Gyertson, Kylie, additional, Bojang, Fanta, additional, Levermore, Claire, additional, Anastasiadis, Tania, additional, McCabe, John, additional, Devaraj, Anand, additional, Nair, Arjun, additional, Navani, Neal, additional, Hackshaw, Allan, additional, Quaife, Samantha L., additional, and Janes, Sam M., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Decision support tools for low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening: a scoping review of information content, format, and presentation methods

Author

Jallow, Mbasan, Bonfield, Stefanie, Kurtidu, Clara, Baldwin, David R., Black, Georgia, Brain, Kate E., Donnelly, Michael, Janes, Samuel M., McCutchan, Grace, Robb, Kathryn A., Ruparel, Mamta, Van Os, Sandra, and Quaife, Samantha L.

Subjects
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Lung cancer screening, Informed decision making, Decision support tools, Shared decision-making, Health inequality
Abstract

Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but there is limited knowledge about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterise the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000 to April 2021) were identified systematically from Pubmed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organised within two categories: 1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use; and 2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n=13) focused on knowledge exchange, while seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (e.g., Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (e.g., suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.

Published
2022

32. Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

Author

Crosbie, Philip A.J., Gabe, Rhian, Simmonds, Irene, Hancock, Neil, Alexandris, Panos, Kennedy, Martyn, Rogerson, Suzanne, Baldwin, David, Booton, Richard, Bradley, Claire, Darby, Mike, Eckert, Claire, Franks, Kevin N., Lindop, Jason, Janes, Sam M., Murray, Rachael L., Neal, Richard D., Quaife, Samantha L., Upperton, Sara, Shinkins, Bethany, Tharmanathan, Puvan, and Callister, Matthew E. J.

Subjects
Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Abstract

Question Screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung-cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening.Methods Individuals aged 55 to 80, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included General Practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner.Results Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjOR 0.44, 95%CI 0.42–0.46) and socio-economic deprivation (adjOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54–0.62 most versus least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjOR 0.73, 95%CI 0.62–0.87) and socio-economic deprivation (adjOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.98). In total 6,650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees.Conclusion Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socio-economic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening.

Published
2022

33. Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context

Author

Quinn-Scoggins, Harriet D., primary, Murray, Rachael L., additional, Quaife, Samantha L., additional, Smith, Pamela, additional, Brain, Kate E., additional, Callister, Matthew E.J., additional, Baldwin, David R., additional, Britton, John, additional, Crosbie, Philip A.J., additional, Thorley, Rebecca, additional, and McCutchan, Grace M., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think‐aloud study

Author

Jallow, Mbasan, primary, Black, Georgia, additional, van Os, Sandra, additional, Baldwin, David R., additional, Brain, Kate E., additional, Donnelly, Michael, additional, Janes, Samuel M., additional, Kurtidu, Clara, additional, McCutchan, Grace, additional, Robb, Kathryn A., additional, Ruparel, Mamta, additional, and Quaife, Samantha L., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. The reporting of pulmonary nodule results by letter in a lung cancer screening setting

Author

Dickson, Jennifer L, primary, Bhamani, Amyn, additional, Quaife, Samantha L, additional, Horst, Carolyn, additional, Tisi, Sophie, additional, Hall, Helen, additional, Verghese, Priyam, additional, Creamer, Andrew, additional, Prendecki, Ruth, additional, McCabe, John, additional, Gyertson, Kylie, additional, Bowyer, Vicky, additional, El-Emir, Ethaar, additional, Cotton, Alice, additional, Mehta, Simranjit, additional, Bojang, Fanta, additional, Levermore, Claire, additional, Mullin, Anne-Marie, additional, Teague, Jonathan, additional, Farrelly, Laura, additional, Nair, Arjun, additional, Devaraj, Anand, additional, Hackshaw, Allan, additional, and Janes, Sam M, additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend

Author

Groves, Samantha, primary, McCutchan, Grace, additional, Quaife, Samantha L., additional, Murray, Rachael L., additional, Ostroff, Jamie S., additional, Brain, Kate, additional, Crosbie, Philip A. J., additional, Yorke, Janelle, additional, Baldwin, David, additional, Field, John K., additional, and McWilliams, Lorna, additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Author

Wiener, Renda Soylemez, primary, Barker, Anna M., additional, Carter-Harris, Lisa, additional, Caverly, Tanner J., additional, Crocker, David A., additional, Denietolis, Angela, additional, Doherty, Charlotte, additional, Fagerlin, Angela, additional, Gallagher-Seaman, Mary, additional, Gould, Michael K., additional, Han, Paul K. J., additional, Herbst, Abigail N., additional, Ito Fukunaga, Mayuko, additional, McCullough, Megan B., additional, Miano, Danielle A., additional, Quaife, Samantha L., additional, Slatore, Christopher G., additional, and Fix, Gemmae M., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Lung cancer symptom appraisal, help‐seeking and diagnosis – rapid systematic review of differences between patients with and without a smoking history.

Author

van Os, Sandra, Syversen, Aron, Whitaker, Katriina L., Quaife, Samantha L., Janes, Sam M., Jallow, Mbasan, and Black, Georgia

Subjects
LUNG cancer, HELP-seeking behavior, DELAYED diagnosis, SMOKING, SYMPTOMS
Abstract

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world. A significant minority of lung cancer patients have never smoked (14% in the UK, and ranging from 10% to 25% worldwide). Current evidence suggests that never‐smokers encounter delays during the diagnostic pathway, yet it is unclear how their experiences and reasons for delayed diagnoses differ from those of current and former smokers. This rapid review assessed literature about patient experiences in relation to symptom awareness and appraisal, help‐seeking, and the lung cancer diagnostic pathway, comparing patients with and without a smoking history. Methods: MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were searched for studies (2010‐2020) that investigated experiences of the pathway to diagnosis for patients with and without a smoking history. Findings are presented using a narrative synthesis. Results: Analysis of seven quantitative and three qualitative studies revealed that some delays during symptom appraisal and diagnosis are unique to never‐smokers. Due to the strong link between smoking and lung cancer, and low awareness of non‐smoking related lung cancer risk factors and symptoms, never‐smokers do not perceive themselves to be at risk. Never‐smokers are also likely to evaluate their experiences in comparison with other non‐smoking related cancers, where prognosis is likely better, potentially leading to lower satisfaction with healthcare. Conclusion: Never‐smokers appear to have different experiences in relation to symptom appraisal and diagnosis. However, evidence in relation to help‐seeking, and what is driving diagnostic delays for never‐smoker patients specifically is lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Reply to Wilson: Improving Lung Cancer Screening Uptake

Author

Quaife, Samantha L., primary, Ruparel, Mamta, additional, Dickson, Jennifer L., additional, Beeken, Rebecca J., additional, McEwen, Andy, additional, Baldwin, David R., additional, Bhowmik, Angshu, additional, Navani, Neal, additional, Sennett, Karen, additional, Duffy, Stephen W., additional, Waller, Jo, additional, and Janes, Samuel M., additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a lung cancer screening programme

Author

Murray, Rachael L, primary, Brain, Kate, additional, Britton, John, additional, Quinn-Scoggins, Harriet D, additional, Lewis, Sarah, additional, McCutchan, Grace M, additional, Quaife, Samantha L, additional, Wu, Qi, additional, Ashurst, Alex, additional, Baldwin, David, additional, Crosbie, Philip A J, additional, Neal, Richard D, additional, Parrott, Steve, additional, Rogerson, Suzanne, additional, Thorley, Rebecca, additional, and Callister, Matthew EJ, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk

Author

Crosbie, Philip AJ, primary, Gabe, Rhian, additional, Simmonds, Irene, additional, Kennedy, Martyn, additional, Rogerson, Suzanne, additional, Ahmed, Nazia, additional, Baldwin, David R, additional, Booton, Richard, additional, Cochrane, Ann, additional, Darby, Michael, additional, Franks, Kevin, additional, Hinde, Sebastian, additional, Janes, Sam M, additional, Macleod, Una, additional, Messenger, Mike, additional, Moller, Henrik, additional, Murray, Rachael L, additional, Neal, Richard D, additional, Quaife, Samantha L, additional, Sculpher, Mark, additional, Tharmanathan, Puvanendran, additional, Torgerson, David, additional, and Callister, Matthew EJ, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results