Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report

Alison Vaux-Bjerke, Deborah H. John, Katrina L. Piercy
{"title":"Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report","authors":"Alison Vaux-Bjerke, Deborah H. John, Katrina L. Piercy","doi":"10.51250/jheal.v3i1.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nThe Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activity just 12.8% of those ages 65 and older meet the Guidelines. To address this, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) developed a Midcourse Report focused on effective strategies to improve older adult physical activity behaviors. The first step in this process was a systematic literature review. \nA literature review team was contracted to examine the evidence on key settings and effective behavioral intervention strategies, as well as effective policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) approaches, to improve physical activity among older adults. The PSE search employed an equity-centered framework adapted to researching PSE approaches for improving physical activity outcomes in older adults. \nSixteen thousand eight hundred and eighty-three titles and abstracts were screened, and 734 full articles were reviewed for inclusion. Of those, 64 original research articles were included for the final review to answer two questions, one (plus 5 sub-questions) focused on Settings/Strategies literature (46 studies) and one (plus 2 sub-questions) focused on PSE literature (18 studies). \nThe literature review process identified key settings and evidence-based strategies to support older adults in becoming more physically active, and provides a foundation for the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Implementation Strategies for Older Adults. More research is needed to address how factors related to equity and psychosocial constructs influence physical activity behaviors among older adults.  \n  \nKey Words \nPhysical activity, policy, older adults, systematic review, Policy-Systems-Environment, aerobic physical activity, muscle strengthening physical activity \n  \n  \nIntroduction \nThe Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2018) serves as the benchmark and primary, authoritative voice of the federal government for providing science-based guidance on physical activity, fitness, and health for Americans. The most recent edition, released in 2018, provides evidence-based recommendations for Americans ages 3 and older to safely get the physical activity they need to stay healthy (HHS, 2018). In 2013, five years after the release of the first edition of the Guidelines, HHS released a midcourse report (Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report Subcommittee of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition (PAG Midcourse Subcommittee), 2013). This report focused on strategies to increase physical activity among youth and focused on five key areas where youth live, learn, and play – preschool and childcare centers, schools, family and home, community (built environment), and primary care medical settings (PAG Midcourse, 2013). The next midcourse report focused on older adults (ages 65 and older). \nThe benefits of regular physical activity occur throughout life and are essential for healthy aging. Research suggests it is never too late to start being physically active. Despite the many benefits of physical activity, only 12.8% of adults over age 65 meet the aerobic and muscle-strengthening Guidelines (HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), 2022). This rate may be influenced by several factors, as barriers to physical activity differ from individual to individual and are influenced by socioeconomic, cultural, built environment, and other community factors. \nThe Guidelines contains quantitative recommendations for older adults but does not include implementation strategies. Therefore, a literature review was conducted to identify successful interventions to promote increased physical activity and adherence to the key guidelines for older adults and summarized in the Physical Activity and Older Adults Systematic Literature Review (ICF Next, 2023). The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Implementation Strategies for Older Adults (Midcourse Report) (HHS, 2023) serves to further the breadth of the Guidelines to facilitate the implementation of proven programs and other strategies that can increase levels of physical activity among older adults. This paper outlines the literature review methodology to support the Midcourse Report. \nMethods: Literature Review \nIn 2022, HHS contracted with a Literature Review Team to review the evidence on effective strategies to increase physical activity among older adults. This work was supported by the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition (PCSFN) Science Board (Science Board), made up of 11 experts in physical activity and older adult populations.   \nThe Literature Review Team used a methodology supported by best practices for systematic literature reviews developed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) (USDA NESR Branch, 2023), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (AHRQ, 2014), the Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins et al., 2022), and the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine standards to review, evaluate, and synthesize published, peer-reviewed physical activity research (Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 2011). This review process was largely guided by the approach taken to review the literature for the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report (2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; Torres et al., 2018). Paralleling the 2018 process, this protocol-driven review approach was undertaken to maximize transparency, minimize bias, and ensure the review conducted was timely, relevant, and high quality. There are two major distinctions between this review and that conducted by the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee: 1) the decision to review original articles instead of using a “review of reviews” approach; and 2) to focus on research with physical activity outcomes as opposed to health outcomes. \nAll work completed by the Literature Review Team was under the direction and review of ODPHP, on behalf of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the PCSFN. The Literature Review Team coordinated the literature review process, developed an abstraction tool and accompanying abstraction and triage guides, and implemented training and quality control protocols. Several groups supported the literature review work: \n \nLibrarians reviewed search strategies and provided guidance as needed. \nThe Triage Team conducted title and abstract triage of articles identified through the literature searches. \nThe Abstraction Team engaged in rigorous training before abstracting data from included articles. A portion of this group also assessed risk of bias on a subset of the included articles. \nThe Science Board identified, aggregated, organized, and analyzed the scientific literature. \n \nA six-step process was used to examine the literature: \n \nStep 1: Develop systematic review questions \nStep 2: Develop systematic review strategy \nStep 3: Search, screen, and select evidence to review for each question \nStep 4: Abstract data and assess the risk of bias of the research \nStep 5: Describe the evidence \nStep 6: Complete evidence portfolios and draft Scientific Report \n \nStep 1: Developing Systematic Review Questions \nFollowing the cadence of previous editions of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans with an interim Midcourse Report, HHS initiated the process to review the scientific literature focused on effective approaches to promote physical activity among older adults. ODPHP outlined a need to examine intervention strategies and key settings that are effective in promoting movement and achievement of the key guidelines for physical activity for older adults. Additional factors of interest for the literature review included how engagement in physical activity interventions may influence mental health, well-being, social connection, and other related social and emotional factors; as well as how interventions implemented as policy, systems, and environmental approaches to change the context influence physical activity in older adult populations. \nSolidifying Systematic Review Questions. The Literature Review Team developed research questions focused on the previously specified topics. The research questions and corresponding sub-questions are as follows: \nQuestion 1: What are effective intervention strategies to increase physical activity among older adults? \n \nDoes the mode of delivery (e.g., virtual, in person, phone) impact the effectiveness of interventions? \nDoes the setting impact the effectiveness of the interventions? \nWhat barriers exist to engaging or participating in the intervention? What are the retention, attrition, and/or attendance rates? \nDo personal characteristics (e.g., ability, age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) or chronic health conditions influence participation? \nDo interventions assess changes in participant mental health, quality of life, well-being, resilience, or social connection and isolation? \n \nQuestion 2: What are effective policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) strategies to increase physical activity among older adults? \n \nIs there a dose-response relation between the scope and reach of the PSE strategy and “success”? \nDoes the “success” of the PSE strategy vary by geographical location or by sociodemographic subgroup? \n \nStep 2: Develop Systematic Review Strategy \nDevelop Analytical Frameworks. Analytical frameworks were developed for each research question. Analytical frameworks are graphic representations used to lay the groundwork and initial parameters for each search. The frame","PeriodicalId":73774,"journal":{"name":"Journal of healthy eating and active living","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of healthy eating and active living","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51250/jheal.v3i1.55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activity just 12.8% of those ages 65 and older meet the Guidelines. To address this, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) developed a Midcourse Report focused on effective strategies to improve older adult physical activity behaviors. The first step in this process was a systematic literature review. A literature review team was contracted to examine the evidence on key settings and effective behavioral intervention strategies, as well as effective policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) approaches, to improve physical activity among older adults. The PSE search employed an equity-centered framework adapted to researching PSE approaches for improving physical activity outcomes in older adults. Sixteen thousand eight hundred and eighty-three titles and abstracts were screened, and 734 full articles were reviewed for inclusion. Of those, 64 original research articles were included for the final review to answer two questions, one (plus 5 sub-questions) focused on Settings/Strategies literature (46 studies) and one (plus 2 sub-questions) focused on PSE literature (18 studies). The literature review process identified key settings and evidence-based strategies to support older adults in becoming more physically active, and provides a foundation for the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Implementation Strategies for Older Adults. More research is needed to address how factors related to equity and psychosocial constructs influence physical activity behaviors among older adults.    Key Words Physical activity, policy, older adults, systematic review, Policy-Systems-Environment, aerobic physical activity, muscle strengthening physical activity     Introduction The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2018) serves as the benchmark and primary, authoritative voice of the federal government for providing science-based guidance on physical activity, fitness, and health for Americans. The most recent edition, released in 2018, provides evidence-based recommendations for Americans ages 3 and older to safely get the physical activity they need to stay healthy (HHS, 2018). In 2013, five years after the release of the first edition of the Guidelines, HHS released a midcourse report (Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report Subcommittee of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition (PAG Midcourse Subcommittee), 2013). This report focused on strategies to increase physical activity among youth and focused on five key areas where youth live, learn, and play – preschool and childcare centers, schools, family and home, community (built environment), and primary care medical settings (PAG Midcourse, 2013). The next midcourse report focused on older adults (ages 65 and older). The benefits of regular physical activity occur throughout life and are essential for healthy aging. Research suggests it is never too late to start being physically active. Despite the many benefits of physical activity, only 12.8% of adults over age 65 meet the aerobic and muscle-strengthening Guidelines (HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), 2022). This rate may be influenced by several factors, as barriers to physical activity differ from individual to individual and are influenced by socioeconomic, cultural, built environment, and other community factors. The Guidelines contains quantitative recommendations for older adults but does not include implementation strategies. Therefore, a literature review was conducted to identify successful interventions to promote increased physical activity and adherence to the key guidelines for older adults and summarized in the Physical Activity and Older Adults Systematic Literature Review (ICF Next, 2023). The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Implementation Strategies for Older Adults (Midcourse Report) (HHS, 2023) serves to further the breadth of the Guidelines to facilitate the implementation of proven programs and other strategies that can increase levels of physical activity among older adults. This paper outlines the literature review methodology to support the Midcourse Report. Methods: Literature Review In 2022, HHS contracted with a Literature Review Team to review the evidence on effective strategies to increase physical activity among older adults. This work was supported by the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition (PCSFN) Science Board (Science Board), made up of 11 experts in physical activity and older adult populations.   The Literature Review Team used a methodology supported by best practices for systematic literature reviews developed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) (USDA NESR Branch, 2023), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (AHRQ, 2014), the Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins et al., 2022), and the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine standards to review, evaluate, and synthesize published, peer-reviewed physical activity research (Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 2011). This review process was largely guided by the approach taken to review the literature for the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report (2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018; Torres et al., 2018). Paralleling the 2018 process, this protocol-driven review approach was undertaken to maximize transparency, minimize bias, and ensure the review conducted was timely, relevant, and high quality. There are two major distinctions between this review and that conducted by the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee: 1) the decision to review original articles instead of using a “review of reviews” approach; and 2) to focus on research with physical activity outcomes as opposed to health outcomes. All work completed by the Literature Review Team was under the direction and review of ODPHP, on behalf of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the PCSFN. The Literature Review Team coordinated the literature review process, developed an abstraction tool and accompanying abstraction and triage guides, and implemented training and quality control protocols. Several groups supported the literature review work: Librarians reviewed search strategies and provided guidance as needed. The Triage Team conducted title and abstract triage of articles identified through the literature searches. The Abstraction Team engaged in rigorous training before abstracting data from included articles. A portion of this group also assessed risk of bias on a subset of the included articles. The Science Board identified, aggregated, organized, and analyzed the scientific literature. A six-step process was used to examine the literature: Step 1: Develop systematic review questions Step 2: Develop systematic review strategy Step 3: Search, screen, and select evidence to review for each question Step 4: Abstract data and assess the risk of bias of the research Step 5: Describe the evidence Step 6: Complete evidence portfolios and draft Scientific Report Step 1: Developing Systematic Review Questions Following the cadence of previous editions of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans with an interim Midcourse Report, HHS initiated the process to review the scientific literature focused on effective approaches to promote physical activity among older adults. ODPHP outlined a need to examine intervention strategies and key settings that are effective in promoting movement and achievement of the key guidelines for physical activity for older adults. Additional factors of interest for the literature review included how engagement in physical activity interventions may influence mental health, well-being, social connection, and other related social and emotional factors; as well as how interventions implemented as policy, systems, and environmental approaches to change the context influence physical activity in older adult populations. Solidifying Systematic Review Questions. The Literature Review Team developed research questions focused on the previously specified topics. The research questions and corresponding sub-questions are as follows: Question 1: What are effective intervention strategies to increase physical activity among older adults? Does the mode of delivery (e.g., virtual, in person, phone) impact the effectiveness of interventions? Does the setting impact the effectiveness of the interventions? What barriers exist to engaging or participating in the intervention? What are the retention, attrition, and/or attendance rates? Do personal characteristics (e.g., ability, age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) or chronic health conditions influence participation? Do interventions assess changes in participant mental health, quality of life, well-being, resilience, or social connection and isolation? Question 2: What are effective policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) strategies to increase physical activity among older adults? Is there a dose-response relation between the scope and reach of the PSE strategy and “success”? Does the “success” of the PSE strategy vary by geographical location or by sociodemographic subgroup? Step 2: Develop Systematic Review Strategy Develop Analytical Frameworks. Analytical frameworks were developed for each research question. Analytical frameworks are graphic representations used to lay the groundwork and initial parameters for each search. The frame
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估科学为美国人提供体育活动指导中期报告
美国人身体活动指南(指南)建议老年人尽可能多运动。然而,尽管有充分证据表明身体活动的好处,但65岁及以上的老年人中只有12.8%符合《指南》。为了解决这个问题,美国卫生与公众服务部(HHS)制定了一份中期报告,重点关注改善老年人体育活动行为的有效策略。这个过程的第一步是系统的文献综述。我们聘请了一个文献审查小组来检查关键设置和有效行为干预策略的证据,以及有效的政策、系统和环境(PSE)方法,以改善老年人的身体活动。PSE搜索采用了一个以公平为中心的框架,适用于研究PSE方法以改善老年人的身体活动结果。筛选了16883个标题和摘要,并审查了734篇全文以纳入。其中,64篇原创研究文章被纳入最终审查,以回答两个问题,一个(加5个子问题)侧重于设置/策略文献(46项研究),一个(加2个子问题)侧重于PSE文献(18项研究)。文献综述过程确定了支持老年人增加身体活动的关键设置和基于证据的策略,并为《美国人身体活动指南中期报告:老年人实施策略》提供了基础。需要更多的研究来解决与公平和社会心理结构相关的因素如何影响老年人的身体活动行为。体育活动,政策,老年人,系统评价,政策-系统-环境,有氧体育活动,肌肉强化体育活动简介美国人体育活动指南(指南)(美国卫生与公众服务部(HHS), 2018)是联邦政府的基准和主要权威声音,为美国人提供基于科学的体育活动,健身和健康指导。2018年发布的最新版本为3岁及以上的美国人提供了基于证据的建议,以安全获得保持健康所需的身体活动(HHS, 2018)。2013年,在第一版指南发布五年后,卫生与公众服务部发布了一份中期报告(总统健身、运动与营养委员会中期报告小组委员会(PAG中期小组委员会),2013年)。本报告侧重于增加青少年身体活动的策略,并侧重于青少年生活、学习和玩耍的五个关键领域——学前和托儿中心、学校、家庭和家庭、社区(建成环境)和初级保健医疗环境(PAG Midcourse, 2013年)。下一个中期报告关注的是老年人(65岁及以上)。有规律的体育活动的好处贯穿一生,对健康老龄化至关重要。研究表明,开始锻炼身体永远不会太晚。尽管体育活动有很多好处,但65岁以上的成年人中只有12.8%符合有氧和肌肉强化指南(美国卫生与公众服务部疾病预防和健康促进办公室,2022年)。这一比率可能受到几个因素的影响,因为身体活动障碍因人而异,并受到社会经济、文化、建筑环境和其他社区因素的影响。该指南包含针对老年人的定量建议,但不包括实施战略。因此,我们进行了一项文献综述,以确定促进老年人增加身体活动和遵守关键指南的成功干预措施,并在《身体活动和老年人系统文献综述》(ICF Next, 2023)中进行了总结。美国人身体活动指南中期报告:老年人实施战略(中期报告)(HHS, 2023)旨在进一步扩大指南的广度,以促进实施可提高老年人身体活动水平的经过验证的计划和其他战略。本文概述了文献综述方法,以支持中期报告。2022年,美国卫生与公众服务部与一个文献综述小组签约,对增加老年人身体活动的有效策略的证据进行综述。这项工作得到了总统运动、健身与营养委员会(PCSFN)科学委员会(科学委员会)的支持,该委员会由11名体育活动和老年人专家组成。 文献综述小组采用了由美国农业部(USDA)营养证据系统综述(NESR) (USDA NESR分支机构,2023年)、医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ) (AHRQ, 2014年)、Cochrane协作(Higgins等人,2022年)以及美国国家科学院、工程院和医学院卫生与医学部制定的系统文献综述最佳实践支持的方法来进行综述、评估、并综合发表的同行评议的体育活动研究(美国医学研究所比较有效性研究系统评价标准委员会,2011年)。这一审查过程在很大程度上遵循了2018年身体活动指南咨询委员会科学报告(2018年身体活动指南咨询委员会,2018年;Torres et al., 2018)。与2018年的进程类似,采用这种协议驱动的审查方法是为了最大限度地提高透明度,最大限度地减少偏见,并确保进行的审查及时、相关和高质量。本次综述与2018年《身体活动指南》咨询委员会进行的综述有两个主要区别:1)决定对原始文章进行综述,而不是采用“综述的综述”方法;2)关注体育活动的结果,而不是健康结果。文献审查小组完成的所有工作都是在ODPHP的指导和审查下完成的,ODPHP代表美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)、疾病控制和预防中心以及PCSFN。文献回顾小组协调文献回顾过程,开发一个抽象工具和伴随的抽象和分类指南,并实施培训和质量控制协议。一些团体支持文献综述工作:图书管理员审查搜索策略并提供必要的指导。分诊组对通过文献检索确定的文章进行标题和摘要分诊。在从包含的文章中提取数据之前,抽象团队进行了严格的培训。该组的一部分人还对纳入文章的一个子集进行了偏倚风险评估。科学委员会对科学文献进行鉴定、汇总、组织和分析。采用六步流程对文献进行审查:第一步:提出系统评价问题;第二步:制定系统评价策略;第三步:搜索、筛选和选择每个问题的证据;第四步:摘要数据并评估研究的偏倚风险;第五步:描述证据;第六步:完成证据组合并起草科学报告;按照前几版《美国人体育活动指南》的节奏和中期报告,卫生与公众服务部启动了审查科学文献的过程,重点是促进老年人体育活动的有效方法。ODPHP概述了审查干预策略和关键环境的必要性,这些策略和环境在促进老年人运动和实现身体活动关键准则方面是有效的。文献综述的其他感兴趣的因素包括参与体育活动干预如何影响心理健康、福祉、社会联系和其他相关的社会和情感因素;以及作为改变环境的政策、系统和环境方法实施的干预措施如何影响老年人的身体活动。巩固系统审查问题。文献回顾小组针对先前指定的主题提出了研究问题。研究问题及相应的子问题如下:问题1:增加老年人身体活动的有效干预策略是什么?提供方式(例如,虚拟、面对面、电话)是否影响干预措施的有效性?环境是否会影响干预措施的有效性?参与干预存在什么障碍?留存率、流失率和/或出勤率是多少?个人特征(如能力、年龄、性别、种族/民族、社会经济地位)或慢性健康状况是否影响参与?干预措施是否评估参与者心理健康、生活质量、幸福感、恢复力或社会联系和孤立的变化?问题2:增加老年人身体活动的有效政策、系统和环境(PSE)策略是什么?公共环境安全策略的范围和范围与“成功”之间是否存在剂量-反应关系?PSE策略的“成功”是否因地理位置或社会人口分组而异?第二步:制定系统审查策略,制定分析框架。 为每个研究问题制定了分析框架。分析框架是图形表示,用于为每次搜索奠定基础和初始参数。框架
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adult Sports Participation and Physical Activity: How About Curling? Black Girls as Transformative Leaders in Physical Activity Programs. Brownfields to Healthfields: A Retrospective Ripple Effect Mapping Evaluation in Three Rural Communities. Complete Highway Removal vs. Highway Removal to Boulevards vs. Caps: Redressing Past Wrongs while Addressing the Decay of America's Most Ambitious Public Works Project. Developing translational products for adapting evidence-based physical activity interventions in rural communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1