Skip to main content
Download PDF

Social epidemiology of online dating in U.S. early adolescents

BMC Research Notes volume 17, Article number: 145 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the prevalence and sociodemographic associations of online dating in a demographically diverse U.S. national cohort of early adolescents.

Methods

We analyzed cross-sectional data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (Year 2, 2018–2020, ages 11–12; N = 10,157). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed to estimate associations between sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, household income, parental education) and early adolescent-reported online dating behaviors.

Results

Overall, 0.4% (n = 38) of participants reported ever using a dating app. Males (AOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.11–6.78) had higher odds of online dating compared to females, and sexual minority identification (e.g., lesbian, gay, or bisexual; AOR 12.97, 95% CI 4.32–38.96) was associated with greater odds of online dating compared to heterosexual identification.

Conclusion

Given the occurrence of online dating among early adolescents despite age restrictions, interventions might address age misrepresentation. Adolescent sexual health education may consider incorporating anticipatory guidance on online dating, especially for males and sexual minorities. Future research could further investigate online dating patterns from early to late adolescence and associated health effects.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The influence of real-time location-based dating apps has reshaped the landscape of socialization and dating. Approximately 25–39% of newly-formed couples have met through online dating apps [1, 2]. Previous studies on online dating have focused on adult or older adolescent samples [3, 4]. One study of U.S. adolescents and young adults (13–24 years) found that 19% of adolescents under age 18 reported using online dating sites, compared to 38% of young adults [5]; however, the mean age was 20 years and only 22% of the sample was under age 18. Another study of adolescents in urban environments (mean age 17 years) found that 10% of adolescents had initiated a romantic relationship online [6]. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the prevalence of online dating in early adolescence, which is an important developmental period characterized by more independence, the emergence of sexual feelings, and more concerns with body image and peer perception.

While the emergence of sexual feelings and initiation of dating may be a part of normal adolescent development, there are potential health risks associated with adolescent online dating. Early online dating debut (prior to age 18 years) in females was associated with higher anxiety and depression, as well as condomless sex [7]. Additionally, adolescents using online dating apps have reported experiencing insults, privacy violations, violence, and pressure for sex or sexual photos [8, 9]. Furthermore, studies suggest that online dating apps can be a platform to allow for the exchanging of sexually explicit or provocative content which is a risk factor for offline and online dating violence in adolescents [10, 11]. Childhood maltreatment, potentially through online dating, is a risk factor for sexual victimization in adulthood among young heterosexual women who use online dating, further elucidating the potential long-term effects of online dating at a young age [12].

Social epidemiology aims to examine how demographic (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation) and socioeconomic (e.g., income, education) factors influence health and related factors in order to better understand health disparities [13,14,15]. Prior literature investigating socioeconomic and demographic correlates of adult online dating usage has documented that there is a higher prevalence of dating apps with user age ranges between 24 and 30 years of age, that about 60% of users are men, and that there may be a direct link between Tinder use and educational level [16]. One cross-sectional study of Canadian young adults found that Tinder use was associated with higher education (college/university vs. high school education), but was not significantly associated with gender, sexual orientation, or race/ethnicity [17]. However, demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with online dating in early adolescents remain unknown.

Given the rapidly evolving digital landscape and the increasing presence of younger demographics on social and dating applications, it is important to study early adolescents. This study aims to explore the social epidemiology of online dating in early adolescents using a demographically diverse national cohort of early adolescents. Findings may be important to inform digital literacy, health education, and guidance for early adolescents.

Methods

Study design

This analysis utilized cross-sectional data from Year 2 (2018–2020) of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a diverse, national cohort of adolescent health and development. The observational study recruited 11,875 at baseline (2016–2018, ages 9–10 years) from 21 study sites representing the nation’s major regions. Stratified, probability sampling of U.S. schools was informed by gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and urbanicity to maximize representativeness of the baseline cohort with regards to the demographic and socioeconomic makeup of 9-10-year-old early adolescents in the U.S. For this analysis, we included 10,157 adolescent participants (mostly ages 11–12 years) with complete online dating and sociodemographic data at Year 2. Additional details regarding the ABCD Study’s recruitment process, procedures, participants, and measures have been described previously [18, 19]. Centralized institutional review board approval was obtained from the University of California, San Diego. Written informed consent and assent were obtained from a parent/guardian and the child, respectively, to participate in the ABCD study.

Measures

Online dating was assessed through adolescent report of the following question, “Have you ever used a dating app?” (yes, no). Sociodemographic variables included parent report of biological sex (male, female), adolescent participant’s age, race/ethnicity (White, Latino/Hispanic, Black, Asian, Native American, Other), household income ($74,999 or less, $75,000 or greater, approximating the median household income in the US) [20], and highest parental education (high school education or less, college education or more). To assess sexual orientation, adolescents were asked, “Are you gay or bisexual?” (yes, maybe, no, don’t understand the question, decline to answer) [21]. Given small numbers, maybe, don’t understand the question, and decline to answer were combined into “other.”

Statistical analysis

Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between sociodemographic factors (e.g., sex, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, household income, parental education) and online dating, adjusting for study site. Analyses were conducted in 2023 using Stata 18.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) and applied ABCD Study propensity weights to match key sociodemographic variables in the ABCD Study to early adolescents in the American Community Survey from the US Census [22]. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

Results

The sociodemographic and online dating characteristics of ABCD Study participants (mean age 12.04 years, 48.9% female, and 45.7% racial/ethnic minorities) are shown in Table 1. Overall, 0.4% (n = 38) reported ever using a dating app. Among early adolescents who reported ever using a dating app, 56.3% were male and 55.9% were White. Over a quarter (26.2%) of early adolescents who reported ever using a dating app were sexual minorities, whereas only 4.4% of early adolescents who had not used a dating app were sexual minorities.

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics among Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study participants 2018–2020 (N = 10,157)
Full size table

Adjusted associations with sociodemographic factors and online dating among ABCD Study participants are shown in Table 2. Male compared to female sex (AOR 2.72, 95% CI, 1.11–6.78) and sexual minority compared to non-sexual minority status (AOR 12.97, 95% CI, 4.32–38.96) were associated with higher odds of online dating, after adjusting for other sociodemographic factors.

Table 2 Sociodemographic associations with online dating among Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study participants 2018–2020 (N = 10,157)
Full size table

Discussion

In this large, diverse national sample of early adolescents (mostly 11–12 years old), we found that 0.4% reported ever using an online dating app. The prevalence estimate of online dating in early adolescents is significantly lower than the prevalence estimates previously reported in older adolescents (8–19%) [5, 6, 23] and young adults (38%) [5]. These trends are also in accordance with normal development, as sexual identity, intimacy, and one-on-one relationships are more characteristic of late adolescence and young adulthood than early adolescence [24]. Despite the low prevalence, the fact that any early adolescents have used online dating is notable since most online dating apps require that users be a minimum of 18 years old to join [25].

Early adolescent boys were nearly three times more likely to report using online dating compared to early adolescent girls. Studies in adults have shown that men are more active users of online dating than women, potentially due to their greater screen use and positive attitudes toward online dating [26, 27]. Early adolescent boys report 45 more minutes of screen use per day than early adolescent girls [28]. Among adolescents who used social media and had some relationship experience, boys were more likely than girls to report that social media made them feel more connected with their significant other (65% of boys versus 52% of girls) [23]. Furthermore, half of boys reported that social media made them feel more emotionally connected with their significant other, compared to only 37% of girls [23].

Sexual minority identity was associated with nearly thirteenfold higher odds of reporting online dating compared to heterosexual identification among early adolescents. Also, sexual minority early adolescents report nearly four more hours of daily recreational screen time than their heterosexual peers, across all modalities, including social media, texting, video chat, YouTube videos, and browsing the internet [29]. Sexual minority early adolescents may have fewer romantic partner options in their schools, where they may also face stigma and discrimination [26, 30]. Some dating apps are tailored towards sexual minority users, which may be valuable for identifying other sexual minority users, whereas the sexual orientation/identity of a potential partner may not be obvious in real life [26]. Dating apps often work with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to connect users in close geographic proximity in real time, which may be particularly useful for minority users where there is a smaller local dating pool [31].

We did not find significant associations between race/ethnicity and online dating among early adolescents, similar to a prior study in young adults [17]. Household income and parent education, as proxies for socioeconomic status, were not significantly associated with online dating among early adolescents. Although some prior studies in adults have found that higher education level and higher income were associated with dating app usage [16, 17], this was referring to an adult’s personal socioeconomic status as opposed to that of their parents/households in the case of the early adolescent minors in this study. It should also be noted that dating app usage has been reported across socioeconomic backgrounds, including homeless youth in the US [32].

Limitations

Limitations of this study include its cross-sectional nature and a limited number of early adolescents who endorsed online dating. Online dating was based on self-reports, which may be subject to recall, response, or social desirability bias. Sexual orientation was also based on adolescent self-report and the 11–12 year olds in this sample may not have a clear understanding of their sexual orientation or may not be out yet.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine online dating among a national sample of 11-12-year-old early adolescents. We found that 0.4% reported ever using an online dating app. Given that sexual minority identification and male sex were associated with greater online dating, digital literacy and health education courses may consider anticipatory guidance focusing on these early adolescent populations. Future studies should explore online dating patterns (e.g., frequency, content) across early to late adolescence and determine downstream health effects (e.g., sexual, reproductive, and mental health).

Data availability

Written informed consent and assent were obtained from the parent/guardian and adolescent, respectively, to participate in the ABCD Study. Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the ABCD Study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). Investigators can apply for data access through the NDA (https://nda.nih.gov/).

Abbreviations

ABCD:

Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

GPS:

Global Positioning Satellite

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

US:

United States

References

  1. Neyt B, Vandenbulcke S, Baert S. Are men intimidated by highly educated women? Undercover on Tinder. Econ Educ Rev. 2019;73:101914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ, Hausen S. Disintermediating your friends: how online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:17753–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gewirtz-Meydan A, Opuda E, Ayalon L. Sex and love among older adults in the Digital World: a scoping review. Gerontologist. 2023;63:218–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi SK, Bauermeister J. A latent Profile Analysis of Online dating patterns among single young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2022;26:1279–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lykens J, Pilloton M, Silva C, Schlamm E, Wilburn K, Pence E. Google for sexual relationships: mixed-methods study on Digital Flirting and Online dating among adolescent youth and young adults. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019;5:e10695.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tienda M, Goldberg RE, Westreich JR. Adolescents’ Partner search in the Digital Age: correlates and characteristics of relationships Initiated Online. J Youth Adolesc. 2022;51:393–408.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Trub LR, Stewart JL, Lomidze A, Lopez E, Starks TJ. Young adult women and sexual awareness in the Digital Age: examining pathways linking online dating debut and mindfulness with sexual and Mental Health. Arch Sex Behav. 2023;52:2859–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Reed LA, Conn K, Wachter K. Name-calling, jealousy, and break-ups: teen girls’ and boys’ worst experiences of digital dating. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;108:104607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaakinen M, Koivula A, Savolainen I, Sirola A, Mikkola M, Zych I, et al. Online dating applications and risk of youth victimization: a lifestyle exposure perspective. Aggress Behav. 2021;47:530–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morelli M, Bianchi D, Baiocco R, Pezzuti L, Chirumbolo A. Sexting, psychological distress and dating violence among adolescents and young adults. Psicothema. 2016;28:137–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bianchi D, Morelli M, Nappa MR, Baiocco R, Chirumbolo A. A bad romance: sexting motivations and Teen dating violence. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36:6029–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fereidooni F, Daniels J, Lommen M. Predictors of revictimization in Online Dating. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37:NP23057–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kawachi I. Social epidemiology. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2002;54:1739–41.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Honjo K. Social epidemiology: definition, history, and research examples. Environ Health Prev Med. 2004;9:193–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Krieger N. Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:668–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Castro Á, Barrada JR. Dating apps and their Sociodemographic and Psychosocial correlates: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:6500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shapiro GK, Tatar O, Sutton A, Fisher W, Naz A, Perez S, et al. Correlates of Tinder Use and Risky sexual behaviors in young adults. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2017;20:727–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barch DM, Albaugh MD, Avenevoli S, Chang L, Clark DB, Glantz MD, et al. Demographic, physical and mental health assessments in the adolescent brain and cognitive development study: rationale and description. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018;32:55–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Garavan H, Bartsch H, Conway K, Decastro A, Goldstein RZ, Heeringa S, et al. Recruiting the ABCD sample: design considerations and procedures. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018;32:16–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Semega J, Kollar M, Creamer J, Mohanty A. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018. 2019.

  21. Potter AS, Dube SL, Barrios LC, Bookheimer S, Espinoza A, Feldstein Ewing SW, et al. Measurement of gender and sexuality in the adolescent brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2022;53:101057.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Heeringa SG, Berglund PA. A Guide for Population-based analysis of the adolescent brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study Baseline Data. 2020;:2020.02.10.942011.

  23. Lenhart A, Anderson M, Smith A, Teens. Technology and Romantic Relationships. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 2015. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/10/01/teens-technology-and-romantic-relationships/. Accessed 26 Mar 2024.

  24. Katzman D. Neinstein’s adolescent and young adult health care: a practical guide. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Marston HR, Niles-Yokum K, Earle S, Gomez B, Lee DM. OK Cupid, Stop Bumbling around and Match Me Tinder: Using Dating Apps Across the Life Course. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2020;6:2333721420947498.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Castro Á, Barrada JR, Ramos-Villagrasa PJ, Fernández-del-Río E. Profiling dating apps users: Sociodemographic and personality characteristics. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:3653.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Abramova O, Baumann A, Krasnova H, Buxmann P. Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Literature Review. 2016.

  28. Nagata JM, Ganson KT, Iyer P, Chu J, Baker FC, Pettee Gabriel K, et al. Sociodemographic correlates of contemporary screen time use among 9- and 10-year-old children. J Pediatr. 2022;240:213–e2202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nagata JM, Lee CM, Yang J, Al-Shoaibi AAA, Ganson KT, Testa A, et al. Associations between sexual orientation and early adolescent screen use: findings from the adolescent brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. Ann Epidemiol. 2023;82:54–e581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Korchmaros JD, Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ. Adolescent online romantic relationship initiation: differences by sexual and gender identification. J Adolesc. 2015;40:54–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wu S, Ward J. The mediation of gay men’s lives: a review on gay dating app studies. Sociol Compass. 2018;12:e12560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Srivastava A, Rusow JA, Holguin M, Semborski S, Onasch-Vera L, Wilson N, et al. Exchange and Survival Sex, dating apps, gender identity, and sexual Orientation among Homeless Youth in Los Angeles. J Prim Prev. 2019;40:561–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Zain Memon, Richard Do, and Anthony Kung for editorial assistance. The ABCD Study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland) and additional federal partners under award numbers U01DA041022, U01DA041025, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, U01DA041089, U01DA041093, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041120, U01DA041134, U01DA041148, U01DA041156, U01DA041174, U24DA041123, and U24DA041147. A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners/. A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/principal-investigators.html. ABCD consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in the analysis or writing of this report.

Funding

J.M.N. was funded by the National Institutes of Health (K08HL159350 and R01MH135492) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (2022056). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, 4th Floor, 94143, San Francisco, CA, Box 0503, USA

    Jason M. Nagata, Priyadharshini Balasubramanian, Joan E. Shim, Jonanne Talebloo, Felicia Yen, Abubakr A.A. Al-shoaibi & Iris Yuefan Shao

  2. Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street W, M5S 1V4, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kyle T. Ganson

  3. Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7000 Fannin Street, 77030, Houston, TX, USA

    Alexander Testa

  4. Center for Health Sciences, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Ave, 94025, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Orsolya Kiss & Fiona C. Baker

  5. School of Physiology, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Ave, Braamfontein, 2000, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Fiona C. Baker

Authors
  1. Jason M. Nagata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priyadharshini Balasubramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joan E. Shim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonanne Talebloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felicia Yen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abubakr A.A. Al-shoaibi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Iris Yuefan Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kyle T. Ganson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alexander Testa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Orsolya Kiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Fiona C. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JMN– conceptualization, analysis, writing- original draft and revisions, supervision PB– conceptualization, data analysis, writing- original draft and revisions JES– conceptualization, data analysis, writing- original draft and revisions JT– conceptualization, writing- original draft and revisions FY– conceptualization, writing- original draft and revisions AAAA– writing-critical revisions IYS– writing-critical revisions KTG– writing-critical revisions AT– writing-critical revisions OK– writing-critical revisions FCB– conceptualization, writing-critical revisionsAll authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason M. Nagata.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of California, San Diego provided centralized institutional review board (IRB) approval and each participating site received local IRB approval: Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. SRI International, Menlo Park, California. University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. University of Maryland at Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Written assent was obtained from participants, and written informed consent was obtained from their caregivers. All the methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagata, J.M., Balasubramanian, P., Shim, J.E. et al. Social epidemiology of online dating in U.S. early adolescents. BMC Res Notes 17, 145 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06777-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06777-w

Keywords

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

Contact us