Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 I, 2. 10. 2| international level for the evaluation and prevention of the possible
2 II, 4. 3 | Monitoring population disability: evaluation of a new Global Activity
3 II, 5. 1. 3| of networks as well as an evaluation of the learning process
4 II, 5. 3. 2| Contributing to the evaluation of screening programmes:
5 II, 5. 3. 2| contribute to the efficient evaluation of screening programmes.
6 II, 5. 3. 2| and involved in the impact evaluation of cancer screening and
7 II, 5. 3. 2| a public health tool for evaluation of cancer control, including
8 II, 5. 3. 2| Cancer Plans in Europe; evaluation of potential contribution
9 II, 5. 3. 2| European Union Cancer Plan; evaluation of potential contribution
10 II, 5. 3. 7| link in the chain. Routine evaluation of each step is, therefore,
11 II, 5. 3. 7| prepared making continuous evaluation possible throughout the
12 II, 5. 3. 7| Ensure that any economic evaluation or Health Technology Assessment (
13 II, 5. 4. 6| planning, monitoring and evaluation of Community programs and
14 II, 5. 4. 6| practices and comprising an evaluation system with measurable targets
15 II, 5. 5. 3| controversial and demand further evaluation (McGrath, 2006).~According
16 II, 5. 5. 3| Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation (PACE) in Australia, and
17 II, 5. 5. 3| and the duration of the evaluation; 24 - 88% (Lacro et al,
18 II, 5. 5. 3| Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation Europe) instrument, a rating
19 II, 5. 5. 3| explicitly in the focus of this evaluation, the findings might to a
20 II, 5. 5. 3| improving mental health care. An evaluation of the effects of the interventions
21 II, 5. 5. 3| disorder~The most comprehensive evaluation of costs for brain disorders
22 II, 5. 5. 3| countries in the scope of this evaluation provided detailed data,
23 II, 5. 5. 3| pathogenesis, development and evaluation of psycho-social treatment
24 II, 5. 5. 3| Decker P, Möller HJ. (2007): Evaluation of the German WPA “Program
25 II, 5. 5. 3| Temkin NR (1983): Program evaluation in epilepsy rehabilitation.
26 II, 5. 5. 3| guide the development and evaluation of services that are provided
27 II, 5. 5. 3| projects on health economic evaluation of brain disorders in Europe (
28 II, 5. 6. 6| Longitudinal radiologic evaluation of osteoarthritis of the
29 II, 5. 7. 5| diagnosis. Policies regarding evaluation of care including CKD are
30 II, 5. 7. 6| patients.~ ~Monitoring and evaluation are essential in the prevention
31 II, 5. 7. 7| on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
32 II, 5. 7. 7| on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
33 II, 5. 7. 7| chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification and stratification.
34 II, 5. 9. FB| still very limited. The evaluation of risk factors and determinants
35 II, 5. 9. 3| not undergo any medical evaluation. In the nine centres participating
36 II, 5. 9. 3| of workdays. For a better evaluation of the effective socio-economic
37 II, 5. 9. 6| integration of the objective evaluation of asthma symptoms with
38 II, 5. 10. 2| Commission relating to the evaluation of allergenic foods for
39 II, 5. 10. 3| frequently cited.~A more recent evaluation of the ECRHS cohorts with
40 II, 5. 10. 7| Commission relating to the evaluation of allergenic foods for
41 II, 5. 11. 6| operate within Europe. Such an evaluation should begin with the users’
42 II, 5. 12. 6| prognosis of cirrhosis, but evaluation and quantification of any
43 II, 5. 12. 7| Cherqui D, et al (1999): Evaluation of efficacy of liver transplantation
44 II, 5. 14. 2| underlined weaknesses in the evaluation of oral health trends: weaknesses
45 II, 5. 14. 5| epidemiological surveillance and evaluation of care programmes. The
46 II, 5. 15.Acr| EMEA~European Medicines Evaluation Agency~ERCN~European Reference
47 II, 6. 4. 4| border health problems. An evaluation of future EU needs in that
48 II, 6. 4. 5| antimicrobial agents for the evaluation of policy effectiveness
49 II, 7. 2. 1| across countries.~ ~For an evaluation of data reliability and
50 II, 7. 2. 2| available).~ht ~ ~For an evaluation of data reliability and
51 II, 7. 3. 4| for the development and evaluation of injury prevention strategies.
52 II, 7. 5 | for Europe has prepared an evaluation report about the progress
53 II, 7. 5 | Programme; and~· Carrying out an evaluation report within 2011.~ ~The
54 II, 9. 1. 2| been no recent economic evaluation of the “burden” of congenital
55 II, 9. 1. 2| anomalies in Europe. Such an evaluation is needed to help give them
56 II, 9. 3. 1| diagnosing osteoporosis is the evaluation of the skeleton by using
57 II, 9. 3. 1| function may require specific evaluation by densitometry and Doppler
58 II, 9. 3. 1| and in implementation and evaluation. Interventions are needed
59 II, 9. 3. 2| that require continuous evaluation. In many countries, babies
60 II, 9. 4. 5| project is to conduct an evaluation of innovative integrated
61 II, 9. 5. 4| consideration aside from their evaluation of prostate cancer and colorectal
62 II, 9. 5. 4| planning, implementation and evaluation. There is considerable emphasis
63 II, 9. 5. 4| support the monitoring and evaluation of gender awareness, where
64 III, 10. 2. 1| and customer behaviour. Evaluation results from community mobilization
65 III, 10. 2. 1| Monitoring, research and evaluation are also mentioned as key
66 III, 10. 2. 1| Drug policies and their evaluation can now benefit from more
67 III, 10. 2. 1| Patterns~ ~For a detailed evaluation of dietary intake in Europe,
68 III, 10. 2. 1| Communities, 2007), monitoring and evaluation are essential elements of
69 III, 10. 2. 1| the lists following the evaluation of an appropriate scientific
70 III, 10. 2. 1| the lists following the evaluation of an appropriate scientific
71 III, 10. 2. 1| diseases).~· Monitoring, evaluation and research (e.g. establish
72 III, 10. 2. 4| Network~REACH~Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction
73 III, 10. 2. 5| and child. A controlled evaluation of the programme indicated
74 III, 10. 3. 1| However, the database for evaluation remains limited, especially
75 III, 10. 3. 1| higher frequencies. Proper evaluation and assessment of possible
76 III, 10. 3. 1| However, the database for this evaluation is limited especially for
77 III, 10. 3. 2| products~REACH~Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals
78 III, 10. 3. 2| legislation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (
79 III, 10. 3. 2| Awareness-raising, Legal instruments, Evaluation) has initially identified
80 III, 10. 3. 2| legislation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals),
81 III, 10. 3. 2| legislation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (
82 III, 10. 3. 4| confusion in the perception and evaluation of a disaster situation
83 III, 10. 4. 2| based on sound scientific evaluation and taking into account
84 III, 10. 4. 2| substances a vast safety evaluation programme is ongoing. Only
85 III, 10. 4. 2| which the outcome of the evaluation is favourable will be authorised
86 III, 10. 4. 2| provides for a scientific evaluation before the products are
87 III, 10. 4. 2| necessarily RMS); and based on the Evaluation Report (ER) of the EMS. –
88 III, 10. 4. 2| to a tiered approach of evaluation of the active substances:~ ~·
89 III, 10. 4. 2| Pesticides Peer review – status: evaluation of active substances.~ ~
90 III, 10. 4. 2| standardised methods for the evaluation of different aspects concerning
91 III, 10. 4. 5| including protocols on evaluation research after major interventions.~ ~
92 III, 10. 5. 1| summarize the more focused evaluation of individual conditions,
93 III, 10. 5. 3| economic effects, a summary evaluation of many studies on various
94 III, 10. 5. 3| the European Commission’s evaluation concerning the status of
95 III, 10. 5. 3| groups of employees.~The evaluation report (European Commission,
96 III, 10. 5. 3| quality~- ensuring policy evaluation by collecting monitoring
97 IV, 11. 1. 5| public reporting systems. The evaluation of the Danish indicator
98 IV, 11. 2. 2| intervention cost effectiveness evaluation in the remit of the National
99 IV, 11. 2. 2| current thinking of economic evaluation in the area of public health,
100 IV, 11. 3. 2| Increasingly, economic evaluation is being used to make reimbursement
101 IV, 11. 3. 2| the results of economic evaluation, but in many other countries (
102 IV, 11. 4 | accompanied by economic evaluation and a review of manufacturers’
103 IV, 11. 5. 1| unacceptable risks. The evaluation of donors suitability is
104 IV, 11. 5. 3| law / guidelines in place, evaluation of the different criteria
105 IV, 11. 5. 3| markers carried out for donor evaluation, Figure 11.17 shows the
106 IV, 11. 5. 4| are lost due to lack of evaluation, lack of referral or because
107 IV, 11. 5. 4| of organs. Pre-transplant evaluation of potential donors is an
108 IV, 11. 5. 4| organ transplantation.~This evaluation must provide enough information
109 IV, 11. 5. 5| organ transplantation, the evaluation methodology and fundamental
110 IV, 11. 6. 4| and outcomes, along with evaluation abilities to assess evidence
111 IV, 11. 6. 5| Guidelines and Research and Evaluation Instrument." J Clin Oncol
112 IV, 11. 6. 5| Hypothecated taxation: an evaluation of recent proposals. London,
113 IV, 11. 6. 5| Øvretveit J (2001): "Quality evaluation and indicator comparison
114 IV, 11. 6. 5| Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals." GMS
115 IV, 12. 2 | and customer behaviour. Evaluation results from community mobilization
116 IV, 12. 4 | scientific excellence in the evaluation and supervision of medicines,
117 IV, 12. 4 | antimicrobial resistance, on the evaluation of new medicines and the
118 IV, 12. 5 | underwent a rigorous process of evaluation coordinated by Eurostat
119 IV, 12. 10 | harmonises the registration, evaluation, administration and restriction
120 IV, 12. 10 | organisms, their safety evaluation and approval for experimental
121 IV, 12. 10 | chemical contaminants~ ~ ~ - Evaluation of biocides~Use of pesticides~
122 IV, 12. 10 | national monitoring and evaluation of the policy. A Public
123 IV, 13.Acr | of the cost effectiveness evaluation of public health interventions
124 IV, 13. 5 | coupled with legally enforced evaluation methods.~ ~An increased
125 IV, 13. 7. 3| transplantation in children), evaluation of scarce high technologies
