Abstract
Background For many diseases, early diagnosis and treatment are more cost-effective, reduce community spread of infectious diseases, and result in better patient outcomes. However, healthcare-seeking and diagnoses for several diseases are unnecessarily delayed. For example, in 2022, 3 million and 5.6 million people living with TB and HIV respectively were undiagnosed. Many patients never access appropriate testing, remain undiagnosed after testing or drop out shortly after treatment initiation. This underscores challenges in accessing healthcare for many individuals. Understanding healthcare-seeking obstacles can expose bottlenecks in healthcare delivery and promote equity of access. We aimed to synthesize methodologies used to portray healthcare-seeking trajectories and provide a conceptual framework for patient journey analyses.
Design/Methods We conducted a literature search using keywords related to “patient/care healthcare-seeking/journey/pathway analysis” AND “TB” OR “infectious/pulmonary diseases” in PubMED, CINAHL, Web of Science and Global Health (OVID). From a preliminary scoping search and expert consultation, we developed a conceptual framework and honed the key data points necessary to understand patients’ healthcare-seeking journeys, which then served as our inclusion criteria for the subsequent expanded review. Retained papers included at least three of these data points.
Results Our conceptual framework included 5 data points and 7 related indicators that contribute to understanding patients’ experiences during healthcare-seeking. We retained 66 studies that met our eligibility criteria. Most studies (56.3%) were in Central and Southeast Asia, explored TB healthcare-seeking experiences (76.6%), were quantitative (67.2%), used in-depth, semi-structured, or structured questionnaires for data collection (73.4%). Healthcare-seeking journeys were explored, measured and portrayed in different ways, with no consistency in included information.
Conclusions We synthesized various methodologies in exploring patient healthcare-seeking journeys and found crucial data points necessary to understand challenges patients encounter when interacting with health systems. and offer insights to researchers and healthcare practitioners. Our framework proposes a standardized approach to patient journey research.
What is already known about this subject?
Accessing healthcare is challenging for half of the world’s population.
Understanding healthcare-seeking obstacles can help to expose bottlenecks in healthcare delivery and improve access.
What does this study add?
We synthesized the different methodologies used by researchers to portray healthcare- seeking trajectories.
We also provide a conceptual framework and recommendations for patient journey analyses.
How do the new findings imply?
Our analysis revealed a lack of consistency in how patient journeys to care are represented and a notable complexity in generating insightful depictions of journeys to care.
The use of our conceptual framework, namely the data points and indicators, could increase the reliability and generalisability patient journey analyses.
Introduction
In 2021, 4.5 billion people or more than half of the world’s population lacked access to the healthcare they needed.1 Diagnoses for several diseases are unnecessarily delayed, contributing to prolonged suffering and avoidable deaths. For example, in 2022, an estimated 3 million and 5.6 million people living with TB and HIV respectively were undiagnosed. 2,3 A significant number of individuals with life-threatening illnesses never access appropriate testing, remain undiagnosed after testing or drop out before or shortly after treatment initiation. 4–7 Some reasons for these gaps in testing, diagnosis, and treatment include individual and interpersonal dynamics like lack of information about the disease and available resources, stigma, financial and cultural factors, symptom minimization, self- medication and mistrust of public sector healthcare8–13; as well as health system factors like poor coverage of services, low index of suspicion among providers, lengthy procedures, misdiagnosis, and poor referral mechanisms between the public and private sectors.10,14–16 These numbers underscore the substantial public health challenge that accessing healthcare poses for many individuals. Despite these barriers, early diagnosis and treatment remain critical for significantly improving clinical outcomes and reducing costs for both patients and the healthcare system, especially for infectious diseases like TB and HIV where early intervention is the most practical method to interrupt transmission.10,17
The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the integrated people-centered health services framework in 2016 to prioritize people’s needs and expectations by engaging communities, reorienting models of care, coordinating services across sectors and strengthening governance and accountability.18–20 Person-centered care emphasizes treating patients as individuals and focuses on providing integrated care, patient information and support, and responding to patients’ values and preferences.21,22 To improve person-centered care, it is important to understand current patient journeys to care23. These studies shed light on the obstacles patients encounter during healthcare-seeking, expose healthcare delivery bottlenecks and promote equitable access.24–26 Understanding patient journeys is critical for making services more patient focused, by identifying gaps in service delivery to ensure quality care is accessible early in the healthcare-seeking process.12,27–29 While patient pathways analyses are emerging, lack of consistency in methods, or shared terms and frameworks makes it difficult to interpret across settings. Our review aimed to synthesize methodologies used to portray patients’ healthcare-seeking trajectories and provide a clear conceptual framework for patient journey analyses. In this review, we have explored methodologies used to highlight patient healthcare-seeking experiences from various disease contexts, including TB.
While also commonly referred to as patient pathways in literature, the healthcare-seeking journey analysis emphasized in this paper differs from the process analytics used to map and improve integration for in-hospital processes between the different departments30–33 or the pathway analysis to determine alignment between population health needs and available services.34,35 Patient journey analyses characterize and quantify the pathways to care of specific patients, detailing not only the total delays between key milestones36–39 but also the number and sequence of visits to healthcare providers. 27–29,40
Current literature has yet to explore the advantages and limitations of different methods of depicting healthcare-seeking trajectories and identifying the key variables that highlight these obstacles. The combination of conceptual and methodological reviews has been used widely in literature to critically appraise different research methods.41–43 A conceptual review is focused on key data points or variables and their relationships, with the goal of categorizing and describing them relevant to a particular topic.44–46 Methodological reviews differ from a traditional systematic review by prioritizing methods over results,47–50 synthesizing study quality by examining design, data collection and analysis.47,48 This review aims to synthesize methods for portraying patients’ trajectories for TB and other diseases and propose a conceptual framework for analyzing these journeys.
Methods
Review Objectives
The primary aim of our review was to assess relevant current practices, methodologies and relevant data points used to map patient care trajectories for TB and related diseases, focusing on the patient healthcare-seeking journey from symptom onset to care outcome across diverse healthcare settings and conditions. The research question was: ‘How do the methodologies employed for patient journey analysis (PJA) differ, what are their strengths and limitations?’.
Review Approach
We use the conceptual and methodological review approaches, which adapt their scope and methods during the process.48,50 We used an iterative approach, using literature review and expert consultations to understand the patient healthcare-seeking journey. This entailed extensive database searches and consultations with experts in tuberculosis care and social science, and refining review findings based on iterative feedback.
Search Strategy and Framework Development
Our process comprised of three steps: (1) A scoping literature search to identify relevant data points and methods; (2) Expert consultation to identify conceptual papers and recommended measures, followed by the development of conceptual map; and (3) An updated literature search targeting papers that included identified data points.
Initial scoping literature search
We performed a scoping search on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for publications on healthcare-seeking trajectories and delays related to TB diagnosis or treatment. The initial search was run in November 2021 (updated later, see below) and was restricted to peer-reviewed publications in the English language with no date restrictions. We also consulted with TB care experts to identify additional papers.
Development of the conceptual framework
Our conceptual framework was derived from the initial literature search followed by expert consultations. The lead author reviewed the literature and identified multiple criteria— variables, factors, and themes—that describe and influence patients’ journeys to care. The research team had several meetings to discuss, clarify, and define the key features to be included in the framework, culminating in developing the first draft. To validate the framework, the team sought expert consultation from experienced researchers and healthcare professionals in the field of TB and HIV care in several meetings, workshops, and conferences to identify additional data points, and ensure a comprehensive understanding of key methodological considerations. The conceptual framework, identifying key variables or themes for two care outcomes – diagnosis and treatment, was refined based on feedback from these interactions and used to define the inclusion criteria. As a result of this process, we decided to expand our initial literature search to cover methodologies used to describe patient healthcare-seeking journeys for infectious or pulmonary diseases, or diseases with non- specific symptoms or lengthy diagnostic procedures – including HIV, COVID, malaria and cancer, to strengthen the insights gained from this methodological review beyond what could be inferred from TB research alone. Defining the conceptual framework helped with the rest of the methodological review to identify the lack of consistency in methods and analytic approaches.
Updated literature search and inclusion criteria
We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Global Health (OVID), and Scopus for publications on healthcare-seeking trajectories, delays to diagnosis or treatment, and access to diagnosis or treatment, for TB, HIV, malaria, COVID-19, and other respiratory and lung disorders. The initial search of November 2021 was updated in April 2022 and searched again in May 2023. Our search strategy can be found in Supplement 1.
To be included in our review, studies had to include at least three of the identified data points for assessing patient journeys within the healthcare system in low- and middle-income countries (Table 1). We excluded case studies of individuals; non-scientific publications such as opinions or editorials; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; studies on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB), latent TB, and pediatric TB (children under 15 years); studies focusing solely on the cascade of care; articles written in languages other than English or French; and articles that did not provide a full report of the results of an experimental study (abstract, reviews, commentaries, proposals, methodology papers, or case study).
References retrieved from all databases were imported into Covidence. Title and abstract screening were carried out by five members of the team (NAV, COO, DK, AS, and MYE) and full-text screening by four members of the team (COO, LH, NAV, and MYE), meeting regularly to review progress and resolve conflicts. Agreement on inclusion between two reviewers was required for inclusion into the study. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer when necessary.
There are no clear guidelines for appraising the quality and risk of bias for methodological reviews.47,48 The focus of the appraisal process for this type of review should be on distinguishing between papers stemming from flawed empirical studies and those presenting well-argued theories.47 We used the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists51 for each applicable study type (qualitative, cross-sectional, cohort, or prevalence study) and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool52 for mixed-methods studies to evaluate the methodological rigor and reliability of the included studies and identify potential biases and limitations within the studies. Quality assessment was carried out by six members of the team (AS, NAV, RD, DK, MYE, and KS) using an electronic form which was piloted by AS and NR (Supplement 3). Quality assessment for each paper was done by two independent reviewers and answers were finalized during a consensus meeting led by AS and MYE.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
Data extraction
Data extraction was done by six members of the team (AS, MYE, NR, DK, HD, and CO) using an electronic data extraction form hosted on Covidence (Supplement 2). The data extraction form was piloted by CO, NAV, LH, and NR prior to data extraction. The data extraction form aimed to collect general information (author name, publication year, country/setting, disease type, study design/data sources, study type and sample size), the journey criteria included for diagnosis and treatment, a general description of the methodology and analysis for each study, as well as strengths and limitations. Data extraction for each paper was done by two independent reviewers, and answers were finalized during a consensus meeting led by AS and MYE.
Ethical considerations
No human participants were involved in this review.
Funding and conflicts of interest
This work was supported by the McGill International TB Centre with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) [grant number INV-022420], and by the School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo. MP was also supported by a Canada Research Chair award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The CIHR did not have any role in the conceptualization or writing of the manuscript or in the decision to submit it for publication. GS, a co-author of this manuscript and an employee of the BMGF provided valuable inputs on the study design, analysis, and revision of the manuscript. MP serves as an advisor to several non-profit organizations including Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO, Stop TB Partnership and FIND. He has no financial or industry conflicts. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study and accept responsibility to submit for publication.
Results
Definition of Key Data points and the Conceptual Map
The care continuum describes the sequence of activities needed to be fully engaged in clinical care for diseases like TB and HIV that requiring lengthy health system procedures to achieve an outcome.53–55 Our patient journey framework, developed after the initial review of literature, highlights the patient healthcare-seeking trajectory across three reference points: symptom recognition, diagnosis, and treatment initiation. Our review illustrates how patients consult various types of providers in differing numbers as they seek care between these reference points. To characterize each visit within a patient’s journey, we identified five key data points: (1) the date of the first visit relative to symptom onset, (2) the type of provider or facility visited (e.g., chemist, general practitioner, specialist, laboratory, hospital), (3) the sector of the provider or facility (for-profit, non-profit, public), (4) the sequence of the visit (first visit, second visit, etc.), and (5) the outcome of the visit (no outcome, diagnosis, treatment initiation). Using these data points, we can compute various indicators for both individual patients and aggregated patient populations. These measures include (1) the number of days and (2) visits until care outcome (diagnosis or treatment initiation), (3) the proportion of visits to different types of providers, (4) the contribution of various provider types to care outcome (diagnosis or treatment) as well as to (6) delays or missed opportunities, and (7) the number of patients exhibiting different patterns or sequences of provider visits. This comprehensive analysis can inform strategies to optimize patient care experiences and reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment.
Our conceptual framework (Figure 1) illustrates the steps in a patient journey and the time delays between key milestones of symptom recognition, diagnosis, and treatment. Starting with symptom recognition, factors like symptom minimization and lack of knowledge of services have been shown to influence healthcare-seeking delays, while the type and sector of first provider have been shown to influence number of subsequent encounters before and timeliness of diagnosis.10,11,56,57 Several health system factors have been shown to influence the timing and number of encounters between the reference points of diagnosis and treatment.10,11,58 Delays are conceptualized as healthcare-seeking, provider and treatment delays, with diagnostic delays being the sum of healthcare-seeking and provider delays, and health system delays representing the sum of provider and treatment delays.27,29
Characteristics of Included Studies
The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2) shows search results from the five main databases. Out of the 12160 studies whose titles and abstracts were initially screened from those databases, 297 studies were assessed for retrieval and eligibility, 231 were excluded through full-text review, and 66 studies were retained that met our eligibility criteria. Each of these 66 studies (our unit of analysis) was a patient journey analysis publication.
Out of the 66 retained studies, we assessed 21 to be of high quality, 37 to be medium quality, and 8 to be of low quality. There were no major differences in the methods for the studies assessed with different qualities.
Table 2 summarizes journey methodology characteristics of included studies. Many studies were quantitative (82%), were conducted in lower middle-income countries (56%), in Asia (59%), and covered TB care journeys (67%). Other diseases include the following: cancer (6.1%), acute febrile illnesses (4.5%), malaria (4.5%), chest symptomatic (3.0%), multiple infectious diseases (3.0%), non-communicable diseases (3.0%), sexually transmitted infections (3.0%), under-five mortality (3.0%), and COVID-19 (1.5%).
Figure 3a summarizes the distribution of patient healthcare-seeking data points aggregated across all included studies. The majority included information on location/provider where treatment was initiated (67%), sector of the providers visited (61%), time to diagnosis (56%), location/provider where a diagnosis was made (55%), number of provider encounters to diagnosis (53%), and type of the providers visited (50%). Proportions of patients per number of encounters to diagnosis (33%) and treatment (20%), and number of provider encounters to treatment (30%) were less commonly explored in the included papers. Figure 3b shows that most of the patient healthcare-seeking data points were reported within studies the four disease groups. Type of facility/provider where treatment was started is more frequently found in articles focused on malaria and fevers and other infectious diseases compared to other disease types. Most categories of data were available in all types of study design (Figure 3b).
Table 3 details the depictions of healthcare-seeking journeys and statistical methods used in the included studies. The most common forms of depicting patient healthcare-seeking journeys were tables quantifying delays and/or journeys (48%) and flowcharts (48%). Descriptive statistics (88%), multivariate regressions (45%), chi-squared test (45%), and logistic regression (36%) were the most frequently used statistical methods.
Table 4 depicts the outcome measures and independent variables used in the included articles. Overall, patient delay (58%) was the most common outcome measure for the 66 included studies. Over one-third (42%) of included articles did not report all possible delays that could have been reported in the manuscript; for example, if the authors reported diagnostic delay (defined27,29 as the number of days between the onset of symptoms and the date of diagnosis and composed of patient delay and provider delay) but did not also report both patient and provider delay. Other than overall delay, the most reported outcome measures of patient journeys were number of visits to diagnosis (36%), sector of facility and type of provider for all instances of healthcare-seeking (36% and 33%, respectively), and type of provider for initial healthcare-seeking visit (32%). Time to initial healthcare-seeking was reported in 29% of included studies. Patient age (97%) and sex or gender (92%) were the two most used independent variables among the 66 included studies, followed by level of education (62%) and occupation (59%). Among patient health status and patient behavior variables, type of disease (30%), presence of any comorbidities (27%), and HIV status (27%) were often included as independent variables. Some patient healthcare-seeking journey characteristics were used as independent variables in analyses of delays, for example, number of visits (30%), sector of facility (39%) and type of provider (38%) of initial healthcare- seeking visit.
Discussions
In our review, we aimed to understand and characterize methodologies used to assess patient journeys to care. Understanding patient journeys helps pinpoint bottlenecks and interventions to minimize missed diagnostic and treatment opportunities among various types of healthcare providers, improve hospital coordination and reduce overall delays in care. Moreover, accurately characterizing aggregate patient journeys between different locations or across different times enhances progress monitoring and policymaking. This requires developing better, consistent metrics and more insightful data visualizations.
Our analysis revealed a lack of consistency in how patient journeys to care are represented and a notable complexity in generating insightful depictions of journeys to care, indicating the challenges in using data to guide healthcare interventions effectively. The scarcity of tools and clear guidelines for analyzing and presenting such complex data further complicates this task, highlighting an urgent need for simple, open-access tools and standardized analytical methods to improve our understanding of patient healthcare-seeking journeys.
We posit that our proposed conceptual framework, identified data points and indicators address this knowledge gap effectively, offering guidance to improve consistency in the analysis of patient journey or healthcare-seeking experiences.
The reviewed papers typically addressed an average of four identified key data points, with patient delays, and the type or sector of facility where the patient was diagnosed or treated being the most often examined. We also noted that the number of provider visits needed for diagnosis or treatment were only reported in 24% and 12% respectively. In our view, the number of visits to diagnosis and treatment are among the most important data points for understanding patient care barriers, as both give us an insight into delays as well as the direct and indirect costs of care. Overall, as none of these factors alone fully characterize patient experiences, or highlight missed diagnostic and treatment opportunities, reporting all data points relevant to the outcome under review (diagnosis or treatment) is crucial for a comprehensive view of patient care journeys. Thus, our methodological review highlighted the key features of patient trajectories (Table 1) that offer insights into the missed opportunities. Additionally, we recommend additional statistical analyses to identify risk factors for having more provider visits or longer delays in the patient care continuum using patients’ sociodemographic characteristics and health status (Table 4). We propose the need for an open source analysis package for Patient Journey Analyses.
Strengths and limitations of study designs
We assessed the strengths and limitations for each study design. Cross-sectional studies provide overview of patient proportions and care-seeking behaviours and quantify patient proportions between visits or delays. Still, varying tools and measures across studies can make collating results challenging and lead to inconsistencies. Cohort studies excel in examining care-seeking behaviors over time and identifying risk factors for delays, providing insights into temporal relationships and complex journeys, though they require large sample sizes and are also vulnerable to recall bias, especially in studies of diseases with low prevalence.
Despite being more resource-intensive, mixed methods research combines quantitative data with rich qualitative insights from key informants. Qualitative research delves deep into the experiences and obstacles within patient journeys, offering flexibility in adapting to different contexts, but is similarly limited by recall bias, high costs, and small sample sizes.
Implications for Future Research
Patient journey analyses are prone to potential inconsistencies in data collection, particularly regarding sampling of patients, measuring encounters by number of providers or visits, and the measurement of time reference points (symptom onset, diagnosis, and treatment). Future research should focus on developing clear, practical recommendations for conducting patient journey analyses and creating open-access tools to overcome methodological and resource limitations. These advancements are crucial for researchers and teams aiming to analyze patient journeys effectively to identify and address care bottlenecks. Learning from our experiences and adopting these strategies will improve the reliability and comparability of patient journey analyses in future studies.
To mitigate recall bias, researchers need to pilot test study instruments, train data collection teams, employ specific sampling strategies (e.g., recruiting patients diagnosed within the last six months), and utilize data triangulation, including mixed methods and comparison to earlier studies where possible. Additionally, data collectors need to be creative in helping patients recall key dates, e.g. with use of local or national events, and/or use clinical records to verify patient-reported dates, where feasible.
Conceptually, incorporating patient cost surveys into journey analyses is another opportunity for a comprehensive understanding of patient care barriers, particularly where these include incurred costs for all healthcare provider visits. Cost surveys are often conducted by economists with a primary focus on cost analysis, and rarely provide detailed insights into the nuances of patient journeys. Conversely, patient journeys analyses rarely include cost data.
This disconnect between cost analysis and journey mapping presents a significant gap in the literature and integrating both aspects could provide a more holistic view of patient experiences and economic impacts. To address this gap, we recommend that future patient cost surveys be designed to enable rigorous analysis of patient journeys, and vice versa. Such an approach would facilitate a better understanding of both the financial and experiential data points of patient care-seeking behaviours. Ultimately, this dual-focus approach could significantly enhance the quality of insights derived from patient surveys, leading to improved patient-centric service delivery and better-informed healthcare policy decisions.
Conclusions
Our findings underscore the critical need for better approaches to compare patient journeys and develop interventions, emphasizing the importance of clear guidelines and accessible tools to facilitate this analysis. This work lays the groundwork for future efforts to enhance access, quality, and equity in healthcare service provision.
Supplementary materials
Supplement 1 - Methodological Review Search Strategy
CINAHL
No field selected; Suggest subject terms checked
Total: 519 [6 Apr 29], update TB: 19, May 05
PubMed
Total: 1631 [1625 apr 29], update TB: 100 May 05
Health seeking pathways (May 8):
Web of Science
TS search; no filter
Total: 1336 (3518 apr 29), update TB: 58, May 05
Global Health via Ovid
Total: 932 (2798 apr 29), update TB: 100 May 05
No filter
Supplement 2 - Data extraction form
General information
Patient healthcare-seeking journey data points included
Journey methodology & analysis
Outcome measures
Other variables
Supplement 3 – Quality Assessment Electronic Forms
General information
Qualitative Research Quality Assessment
Source: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Qualitative_Research.docx
Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.
Mixed Methods Quality Assessment
Adapted from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Citation: Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau B, O’Cathain A, Rousseau M-C, Vedel I. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
Analytical Cross-Sectional Quality Assessment
Source: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Analytical_Cross_Sectional_Studies.docx
Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.
Cohort Study Quality Assessment
Source: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Cohort_Studies.docx
Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.
Prevalence Study Quality Assessment
Source: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Prevalence_Studies.docx
Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.
Supplement 4 – Quality Appraisal
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.
- 106.
- 107.
- 108.
- 109.
- 110.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
- 116.
- 117.
- 118.
- 119.
- 120.
- 121.