Content area
Background
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the leading causes of premature death globally. CVD is expensive to treat and therefore carries a significant cost for public healthcare systems and the people in them. Those most likely to develop CVD often report co-occurring mental health concerns such as depression and anxiety, in addition to behavioural factors (e.g. physical inactivity) and physical health conditions (e.g. hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes). Due to these inter-connecting issues, healthcare provision for CVD patients necessitates a joined-up care pathway providing holistic, person-centred support. Despite the rapid emergence and growth in attempts to deliver such care, evidence concerning how it is experienced and how to promote engagement is fragmented. This review aims to capture the experiences and factors that influence integrated care engagement, reported by adults with CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns.
Methods
This systematic review protocol will be reported according to the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Proposed database searches will include Emcare, MEDLINE, PsycINFO (via OVID), CINAHL and preprint databases for grey literature. Articles of interest will include adults’ experiences of and factors that influence engagement with integrated care in the UK, specifically for support with CVD risk and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. Any study design reporting qualitative primary data will be included (excluding conference abstracts). Data on study population (actors/targets), what they do (behaviours) care setting (context), care format (time) and participant experiences and perspectives will be extracted. Where appropriate, thematic synthesis of extracted data will be coded to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time (AACTT) framework.
Discussion
Findings from this review will provide foundation evidence for a behavioural systems map and recommendations for policymakers, commissioners and those involved or interested in integrated care for people at risk of CVD with mental health concerns. Such evidence can be used to develop future intervention strategies to assist the optimisation of integrated care.
Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42024554282.
Introduction
Globally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is predicted to be one of the leading causes of premature death in 2025, responsible for up to 7.8 million deaths [1]. CVD has been identified by the National Health Service (NHS) in their long-term plan [2] as one of the key clinical conditions requiring urgent attention to save lives. Behavioural factors such as physical inactivity, smoking and alcohol misuse can increase CVD risk, alongside health conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes and a history or family history of heart disease [3]. Common mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression, referred to in the literature as “mild-to-moderate mental health concerns” [4], are frequently reported by people with CVD risk factors [5]. Furthermore, mental health problems can exacerbate CVD risk [6, 7] and adversely affect treatment outcomes [8]. For instance, medication prescribed for a mental health condition can predispose a person to poor physical health, and poor mental health can lead to behaviours that precipitate CVD risk (e.g. inactivity, high consumption of sugary/fatty foods). Holistic support for people with CVD risk factors and mental health concerns has historically struggled to gain traction, despite evidence of benefit [9], suggesting an area in need of further research [10].
Particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been increasing recognition that better connections within health and care services can support optimised functioning of the health system across Europe [11], which benefits the people and families using their services. As part of the Health and Care Act 2022 in the UK, the NHS announced significant changes in their delivery of physical and mental health services, including the establishment of 42 Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) across England [12]. ICSs are partnerships of organisations that come together to plan and deliver joined-up healthcare services to improve the lives of people who live and work in their area [13]. The related policy has a vision of pooling budgets, resources and guiding principles from the NHS, public health and adult social care to assist in joined-up services. While these are new organisational structures, the concept of integrated care has been around for some time. Variation in understandings of what integrated care is has been observed frequently in the literature [14]. Integrated care is often referred to interchangeably as holistic, coordinated or comprehensive care [15] and involves a range of connected health services including health promotion, disease prevention or management and rehabilitation [16]. For the integrated care system to “see the whole picture” when supporting people with physical and mental health conditions, it is important to understand the barriers experienced by those within the system, that prevents this from occurring.
A growing body of evidence has been emerging on delivery and management of integrated care to support people living with complex conditions and multimorbidity. Previous research on healthcare professional experiences found direct barriers to seamless delivery of integrated care systems, which included lack of funding, poor relationships and limited information sharing between services [17]. People with chronic healthcare needs can also face multiple “invisible” barriers that indirectly affect their ability to utilise integrated care, including loss of confidence to engage with services and lack of interdisciplinary coordination between service providers [18]. To support optimal, ongoing delivery of integrated care services, exploring service user perspectives on what influences their experience and engagement is essential [19]. Broadening the evidence base on how integrated care can be used to support patients at risk of CVD and with mild-to-moderate mental health concerns, could help to inform the future delivery of integrated care more generally. To date, no systematic review has examined service user experiences associated with integrated care in the UK for physical and mental health using a behavioural science lens. Use of behavioural and social sciences can help target elements of service provision that work well and highlight areas that need attention.
Several theoretical approaches can help to guide investigations into influences of health experiences, service use and engagement. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) can provide detailed insights into aspects of health-related behaviours that are advantageous for understanding implementation challenges [20, 21]. The TDF has 14 conceptual domains, namely: “knowledge”, “skills” (cognitive/interpersonal and physical), “social/professional role and identity”, “beliefs about capabilities”, ‘”optimism”, “beliefs about consequences”, “reinforcement”, “intentions”, “goals”, “memory, attention and decision processes”, “environmental context and resources”, “social influences”, “emotions” and “behavioural regulation”. A second framework that is beneficial for highlighting contextual factors that affect intervention implementation is the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; 19). Finally, the Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time framework (AACTT; [22]) can also assist with identifying key behaviours of people within a system to inform intervention evaluation. The framework is used by defining components of an intervention, including Action: behaviours that can be changed such as referral to an exercise prescription; Actor: the person/people with the potential to enact behaviour change, such the NHS or a GP; Context: the location of the action, such as a GP clinic; Target: the people or group of people that action is intended for, such as adults experiencing CVD risk factors such as obesity/diabetes and low mood; and Time: when the behaviour occurs, such as during a routine blood pressure check). Here, triangulating these frameworks enables the synthesis and analysis of existing evidence to generate understanding spanning implementation challenges, the influence of context and potential points for intervention.
In sum, this systematic review will generate evidence to inform the development of a behavioural system map of key actors, actions, influence factors and settings in an integrated care system. It will use the TDF, CFIR and AACTT, to generate evidence from patient-centred research on the behavioural influences of their engagement with integrated care in the UK.
Review objectives
A systematic review will be conducted to achieve the following overarching objective of identifying and synthesising published literature reporting factors that influence UK-integrated care service use in adults with CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. The review aims to produce themes based on influences extracted from included studies and produce recommendations for the purpose of future behavioural systems mapping. These aims and objectives will be achieved by answering the following research questions:
What are the behavioural influences of adults’ engagement with UK integrated care for CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns?
How do these identified influences map to two behavioural and implementation science frameworks: the TDF [20, 21] and updated CFIR [23]?
Who and what are the key actors and/or behaviours involved in engagement with integrated care using the AACTT [22]?
Methods
This systematic review protocol has been developed according to Cochrane best practice guidelines [24] and the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) [25, 26]. The protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024554282).
Eligibility criteria
Specific study inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based on the population, intervention, context, outcome and study design (PICOS) criteria [27] for systematic reviews (see Table 1).
Table 1. Review inclusion and exclusion criteria
PICOS | Include | Exclude |
|---|---|---|
Population | Adults aged 18 + who are experiencing CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns | • Children/paediatrics • Adults diagnosed with a CVD |
Intervention | Integrated care services for physical and mental health | Any other form of health or social care that is not linked within the same evidence source/publication |
Context | Conducted in the UK | Conducted outside of the UK |
Outcomes | Service users’ own experiences, views, attitudes (including family and carers when this has been reported) | Healthcare professionals’ experiences, views, or attitudes |
The study must include experiences of engagement (or not) with integrated care services | Participant perceptions of the following: • Trial protocols • In-patient services (e.g. end-of-life care, stroke unit) | |
Study design | Qualitative, peer-reviewed published scholarly articles, and/or preprint articles (“grey literature”) | Studies containing only quantitative data. Conference presentations, letters, short reports, editorials, comments or discussion papers, systematic reviews |
Other considerations • Publications published in English only will be included • Demographic characteristics in studies reporting a majority of participants with CVD risk and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns will be included. The cut-off percentage for inclusion is set at > 80% of the sample • No restrictions on frequency of healthcare use or demographics (sex, ethnicity, etc.) • No date restrictions | ||
Population characteristics
The review will focus on experiences and perspectives regarding engagement with integrated care in the UK, reported by adults with CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns (including their carers/family members where reported).
Intervention
For the purposes of this review, the search strategy will focus on evidence from integrated care studies. Integrated care is defined as joined-up care pathways for people requiring more than one type of care, service or intervention for their physical and/or mental health.
Context/setting
The present review search strategy will focus on evidence gathered from people engaging with any form of integrated care provided in the UK in primary care, secondary care, local authorities, third sector and voluntary services.
Outcomes of interest
The main outcomes of interest in the review are the factors that influence service user or public engagement with integrated care by those with CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. The secondary outcomes will be identification of the key actors (i.e. who is involved) and/or actions (i.e. what they do) involved with integrated care for adults living with CVD risk and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns.
Study type
The review will include qualitative and mixed-methods study designs reporting qualitative primary data on influences of adults’ engagement and experiences of integrated care for CVD risk factors and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. Solely quantitative study designs, editorials, opinion pieces, conference abstracts and systematic reviews will be excluded.
Information sources
Information sources will include searches within OVID (including MEDLINE, Emcare, PsycINFO), CINAHL, and searches for grey literature in PsyArXiv and the Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC).
Search strategy
The search strategy has been developed from consultations with the research literature, subject librarian, and key stakeholders (see Appendix Table 2) and based on a previous review and research conducted by members of the team [28]. Key concepts will be combined using Boolean operators (AND between concepts and OR within concepts). A criterion paper has been identified [29] and will be used during search strategy pilots to ensure successful deployment of search terms within each database.
Data management and study selection
The researchers will use the Covidence platform [30] recommended by Cochrane for managing the review search process. All selection processes will be undertaken by one researcher, who will complete one full round of screening against the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Between them, two additional researchers will carry out screening of 100% of the list to review screening quality. As age is a non-modifiable risk factor for CVD [31, 32], studies that include primary data from participants aged over 65 with a mild-to-moderate mental health concern will be considered for inclusion even in the absence of reporting CVD risk factors.
Data extraction
A data extraction tool will be developed by the study team using Microsoft Excel. Data items for extraction will include the following: Publication details (such as authors/publication year/location), methods (including general study, population characteristics, setting), study findings (including influences on engagement, reported behaviours in the system conceptualised using the AACTT), and, if reported, any patient health outcomes (e.g. patient satisfaction, shorter waiting times). The findings of each included study will be extracted and transferred verbatim into a data extraction table. All text contained under the heading “findings” or “results” in included studies will be considered as data, including both participant quotations and author interpretations, in addition to information regarding study findings reported in the abstract or discussion. For mixed-method studies, only qualitative findings will be extracted. All extracted data will be imported into NVivo [33], a data management software programme that can support coding of qualitative research.
Data synthesis
Data synthesis will primarily be carried out by a small core research team, and findings will be discussed with the wider research team to ensure the synthesis appropriately reflects the original data. Data will be analysed and framed using the TDF and CFIR as a guiding set of frameworks, based on work conducted by the research team on a similar topic [34].
Data synthesis will be carried out in the following steps:
Extracted data will be deductively mapped to the TDF [20, 21], CFIR [23] and AACTT [22] by three authors, each independently coding a sample of studies. At least 20% of the data will be double coded by two researchers for accuracy. The three authors will meet once completed to discuss mapping agreement until consensus is reached. The authors will present the mapped data to the immediate research team to ensure accuracy and agreement before sharing with the wider research team. Discrepancies will be discussed and tweaks made until 100% agreement is reached that justifies the data.
The finalised TDF [20, 21], CFIR [23] and AACTT [22] data reporting factors that influence service user engagement with integrated care will be presented to colleagues with experience in behavioural science, healthcare and policy partners supporting this research. Feedback from this final step will be taken into consideration in the final write-up of the data synthesis.
Quality assessment in individual studies
The researchers will use the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme qualitative research checklist [35]. Three researchers will divide the included articles, and 20% of the papers will be independently evaluated by two researchers, with consensus meetings held and any disagreements resolved through discussion. Although no studies will be excluded based on the quality assessment results, this will serve as a useful tool to assist with data interpretation (e.g. where contradictory findings could be a result of poor-quality studies), and quality of the evidence base will be reflected upon when considering overall study implications.
Patient and public involvement
This work is being undertaken by the NIHR-funded Policy Research Unit in Behavioural and Social Sciences (PRU BaSS), which is supported by a Patient, Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) Strategy Group, made up of patient and public representatives. All projects including this review are discussed by the PPIE Strategy Group at their monthly meetings. Group feedback on the progress of this review will be sought during these monthly meetings and reported to the research team. Additionally, a dedicated PPIE expert member works within the study team as an equal contributor and co-author. They will provide input and advice regularly throughout the review as any other member of the research team, based on their lived experience. For instance, during protocol development, a decision was made to use the phrasing “mental health concerns” instead of “illness” or “diagnosis”. This is because in practice, many people experiencing symptoms relating to anxiety or depression may not receive a formal diagnostic label but can equally be affected on a day-to-day basis by their experience. This decision was made to be as inclusive of these experiences as possible in this evidence review. Our policy partners who form part of the PRU-BaSS oversight group and OptICS advisory group have also had to opportunity to feedback on this work, and will be consulted during the review process.
Discussion
The recent introduction of integrated care systems within the NHS represents one of the biggest changes of the past 10 years [12], meaning the provision of robust evidence concerning its effective implementation and operation is timely. There is a pressing need to provide evidence-based, joined-up care for people with comorbidities, which will also result in savings for the healthcare system as a whole. To the authors’ knowledge, this will be the first review investigating influences of adults engaging with integrated care for CVD risk and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. The review will include an evidence synthesis using well-established empirical tools for implementation research, including the TDF, CFIR and AACTT. The aims of this research are to identify influences of engagement with integrated care for CVD risk and mild-to-moderate mental health concerns, so as to inform policy and future implementation efforts in this area. The findings can be used by policymakers, commissioners, healthcare professionals, researchers and the public concerned with the optimisation of physical and mental health care for complex conditions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Francine Wood, subject liaison librarian from the UCL library, for their input and expertise during review protocol development. The authors wish to thank our policy partners at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), including the Behavioural and Social Sciences Team (BeSST) at the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), who provided helpful feedback throughout the research.
Authors’ contributions
This review forms part of the study entitled Optimising Integrated Care Services (OptICS), a PRU-BaSS project led by AMC. AMC, FL, DO, AoD, EO, IV, MK, FFS and SM conceived the study design and funding acquisition. AMcK wrote the first draft of this manuscript, with contributions from VA, NH, FL, LMcG, AMC, AO, EO, MK, CK, SM, YP, GR, EM and NA. All authors reviewed and commented on the final draft of this manuscript.
Funding
This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and Care (NIHR) Policy Research Unit Behavioural and Social Sciences (project reference NIHR206241). This report presents independent research commissioned by the NIHR. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR, Medical Research Council (MRC), Central Commissioning Facility (CCF), the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), the Policy Research Unit programme, or the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Abbreviations
Actor, Action, Context, Target and Time
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
Cardiovascular disease
Theoretical Domains Framework
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Roth, GA; Nguyen, G; Forouzanfar, MH; Mokdad, AH; Naghavi, M; Murray, CJL. Estimates of global and regional premature cardiovascular mortality in 2025. Circulation; 2015; 132,
2. National Health Service. The NHS Long Term Plan [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/nhs-long-term-plan-version-1.2.pdf
3. National Health Service. Cardiovascular disease [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cardiovascular-disease/
4. Tully, PJ; Cosh, SM; Baumeister, H. The anxious heart in whose mind? A systematic review and meta-regression of factors associated with anxiety disorder diagnosis, treatment and morbidity risk in coronary heart disease. J Psychosom Res; 2014; 77,
5. Bonnet, F; Irving, K; Terra, JL; Nony, P; Berthezène, F; Moulin, P. Anxiety and depression are associated with unhealthy lifestyle in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. Atherosclerosis; 2005; 178,
6. Seldenrijk, A; Vogelzangs, N; Batelaan, NM; Wieman, I; Van Schaik, DJF; Penninx, BJWH. Depression, anxiety and 6-year risk of cardiovascular disease. J Psychosom Res; 2015; 78,
7. Compare A, Proietti R, Germani E, Janeway D. Anxiety and depression: risk factors for cardiovascular disease. In: Dornelas EA, editor. Stress Proof the Heart [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2012 [cited 2024 Sep 20]. p. 139–66. Available from: https://link.springer.com/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5650-7_8
8. Colquhoun, DM; Bunker, SJ; Clarke, DM; Glozier, N; Hare, DL; Hickie, IB et al. Screening, referral and treatment for depression in patients with coronary heart disease. Med J Aust; 2013; 198,
9. Anderson, JG; Taylor, AG. Use of Complementary Therapies by Individuals With or at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Results of the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2012; 27,
10. Osborn, DPJ; Levy, G; Nazareth, I; Petersen, I; Islam, A; King, MB. Relative risk of cardiovascular and cancer mortality in people with severe mental illness from the United Kingdom’s General Practice Research Database. Arch Gen Psychiatry; 2007; 64,
11. Fahy N, Mauer N, Panteli D. European support for improving health and care systems (Policy Brief). World Health Organisation [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://iris.who.int/rest/bitstreams/1377020/retrieve
12. Dunn P, Fraser C, Williamson S, Alderwick H. Integrated care systems: what do they look like? [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-06/2022%20-%20ICS%20characteristics.pdf
13. NHS England. What are integrated care systems? [Internet]. n.d [cited 2024 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/integratedcare/what-is-integrated-care/
14. Lewis, RQ; Checkland, K; Durand, MA; Ling, T; Mays, N; Roland, M et al. Integrated care in England – what can we learn from a decade of National Pilot Programmes?. Int J Integr Care; 2021; 21,
15. Health Education England. Integrated care [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/integrated-care
16. World Health Organisation. WHO global strategy on integrated people-centred health services 2016–2026 [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2024 Feb 16]. Available from: https://interprofessional.global/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WHO-2015-Global-strategy-on-integrated-people-centred-health-services-2016-2026.pdf
17. Mitchell, C; Higgerson, J; Tazzyman, A; Whittaker, W. Primary care services in the English NHS: are they a thorn in the side of integrated care systems? A qualitative analysis. BMC Prim Care; 2023; 24,
18. Schwarz, T; Schmidt, AE; Bobek, J; Ladurner, J. Barriers to accessing health care for people with chronic conditions: a qualitative interview study. BMC Health Serv Res; 2022; 22,
19. Litchfield, I; Kingston, B; Narga, D; Turner, A. The move towards integrated care: Lessons learnt from managing patients with multiple morbidities in the UK. Health Policy; 2022; 126,
20. Cane, J; O’Connor, D; Michie, S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci; 2012; 7,
21. Michie, S; Atkins, L; West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a guide to designing interventions; 2014; London, Silverback Publishing: 329.
22. Presseau, J; McCleary, N; Lorencatto, F; Patey, AM; Grimshaw, JM; Francis, JJ. Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour. Implement Sci; 2019; 14,
23. Damschroder, LJ; Reardon, CM; Widerquist, MAO; Lowery, J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci; 2022; 17,
24. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jun 18]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
25. Page, MJ; McKenzie, JE; Bossuyt, PM; Boutron, I; Hoffmann, TC; Mulrow, CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ; 2021; 29, n71.
26. PRISMA-P Group, Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, et al. Preferred reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 ;4(1):1.
27. Methley, AM; Campbell, S; Chew-Graham, C; McNally, R; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res; 2014; 14,
28. Liapi, F; Chater, AM; Pescheny, JV; Randhawa, G; Pappas, Y. Understanding the experience of service users in an integrated care programme for obesity and mental health: a qualitative investigation of total wellbeing Luton. Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022; 19,
29. Knowles, SE; Chew-Graham, C; Adeyemi, I; Coupe, N; Coventry, PA. Managing depression in people with multimorbidity: a qualitative evaluation of an integrated collaborative care model. BMC Fam Pract; 2015; 16,
30. Covidence | Cochrane Community [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 23]. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/help/tools-and-software/covidence
31. Díez-Villanueva, P; Jiménez-Méndez, C; Bonanad, C; García-Blas, S; Pérez-Rivera, Á; Allo, G et al. Risk factors and cardiovascular disease in the elderly. Rev Cardiovasc Med; 2022; 23,
32. Kim K il. Risk stratification of cardiovascular disease according to age groups in new prevention guidelines: a review. J Lipid Atheroscler. 2023;12(2):96.
33. QSR International. Nvivo [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
34. For the WIDeR-EyeS Project team, Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Lawrenson JG, Burr J, Grimshaw JM, et al. Barriers and enablers to diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: Protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):134.
35. CASP-UK. CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 14]. CASP Checklists - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.