Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 I, 2. 4 | neighbouring countries. Regions of relative wealth coexist with those
2 I, 2. 4 | regarded as being poor. Relative poverty rates in the EU25
3 I, 2. 4 | considerable increases of the relative excess risk of dying in
4 I, 2. 4 | that this widening of the relative gap in death rates is generally
5 I, 2. 4 | countries. Among women, however, relative inequalities in mortality
6 I, 2. 10. 5 | the aim of assessing the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness
7 I, 3. 1. 0(1)| macro context, i.e. the relative change that occurs in the
8 I, 3. 2 | although diminishing in relative terms worldwide, increased
9 I, 3. 2 | although diminishing in relative terms worldwide, increased
10 I, 3. 2 | Portugal and Spain have relative high net immigration, while
11 I, 3. 3 | population result from the relative levels of fertility (number
12 I, 3. 3 | witness large changes in the relative number of ‘children’ over
13 II, 4. 2 | differences among countries in the relative importance of ischemic and
14 II, 5. 2. 2 | populations of 21 countries the relative contribution of IHD incidence,
15 II, 5. 3. 1 | population at risk;~ ~- Relative survival: reflects the survival
16 II, 5. 3. 2 | a cancer diagnosis in a relative of someone attending their
17 II, 5. 3. 3 | supplied by the WHO.~- 5-year relative survival for men and women.
18 II, 5. 3. 3 | incidence, mortality and 5-year relative survival show European countries
19 II, 5. 3. 3 | incidence, mortality and relative survival data presented
20 II, 5. 3. 6 | Figures 5.3.29 show 5-year relative survival for all malignant
21 II, 5. 3. 6 | men. Countries with 5-year relative survival higher then 40%
22 II, 5. 3. 6 | site-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
23 II, 5. 3. 6 | site-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
24 II, 5. 3. 6 | Figures 5.3.30). 5-year relative survival was higher in women
25 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
26 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
27 II, 5. 3. 6 | 5-year colorectal cancer relative survival (Figures 5.3.31)
28 II, 5. 3. 6 | indicate that in Europe 5-year relative survival for colorectal
29 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
30 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
31 II, 5. 3. 6 | with age-adjusted 5-year relative survival ~10% in men and
32 II, 5. 3. 6 | 32). Estimates of 1-year relative survival are ~30% for both
33 II, 5. 3. 6 | time. 5-year age-adjusted relative survival for the entire
34 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
35 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients
36 II, 5. 3. 6 | relatively good, with 5-year relative survival (Figure 5.3.33)
37 II, 5. 3. 6 | and Slovenia) with 5-year relative survival rate between 60
38 II, 5. 3. 6 | 67% (Sant et al, 2003).~Relative survival for breast cancer
39 II, 5. 3. 6 | of the survival deficit relative to other Western European
40 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival. Patients diagnosed
41 II, 5. 3. 6 | 31st December 1999~ ~5-year relative survival for cervical cancer
42 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival. Patients diagnosed
43 II, 5. 3. 6 | that the overall European relative survival for prostate cancer
44 II, 5. 3. 6 | Figure 5.3.35). 5-year relative survival rates for prostate
45 II, 5. 3. 6 | 2003). European 5-year relative survival increased from
46 II, 5. 3. 6 | Exceptional increases in 5-year relative survival for prostate cancer
47 II, 5. 3. 6 | age-standardized 5-year relative survival. Patients diagnosed
48 II, 5. 3. 6 | 2003.~Age-adjusted 5-year relative survival for colorectal (
49 II, 5. 3. 6 | EUROCARE-4 study. 5-year period relative survival for patients diagnosed
50 II, 5. 3. 6 | The European mean 5-year relative survival was 79% for female
51 II, 5. 4. 1 | by insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency. With
52 II, 5. 4. 2 | or ecological fallacy).~Relative to the last point, the issue
53 II, 5. 4. 3 | median value is 18 (Romania). Relative to Type 1, other sources
54 II, 5. 5. 1 | European level, comparison of relative risks may be more reliable
55 II, 5. 5. 1 | diabetes.~ ~Figure 5.5.1.1. Relative burden of some mental health
56 II, 5. 5. 2 | cared for at home by a close relative. In some countries, carers
57 II, 5. 5. 3 | diseases, age and their relative risk of accident involvement:
58 II, 5. 5. 3 | from I to V to indicate the relative level of disability. Rates
59 II, 5. 6. 3 | Farming presents the greatest relative risk for OA: 4.5 for farming
60 II, 5. 6. 4 | cardiovascular disorders. The relative importance of these three
61 II, 5. 6. 6 | Rasooly I, Webster GK (1994) Relative importance of musculoskeletal
62 II, 5. 7. 3 | finding in terms of the relative stability of CKD versus
63 II, 5. 7. 3 | Hallan et al, 2006a) the relative risk for progression from
64 II, 5. 8.Acr | Respiratory Infections~RR~Relative Risk~VC~Vital Capacity~
65 II, 5. 8. 3 | high risk for pneumonia (relative risk (RR) = 16.0), osteoporosis (
66 II, 5. 9. FB | showed a 50% increase in relative risk (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2
67 II, 5. 9. 4 | commonly made in boys in 1989: relative risk (RR) 1.32 (1.12, 1.
68 II, 5. 9. 4 | cause occupational asthma (relative risk=1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3,
69 II, 6. 3. 1 | to clearly understand the relative importance of the different
70 II, 9. 2. 4 | the identification of the relative importance of their determinants.
71 II, 9. 4. 3 | people aged 65 and above relative to those aged 15 to 64)
72 III, 10. 2. 1 | cessation aid. Furthermore, relative trends in progression from
73 III, 10. 2. 1 | 2006).~ ~Maintaining the relative price of alcohol~ ~When
74 III, 10. 2. 1 | more expensive beverages if relative prices decrease, either
75 III, 10. 2. 1 | the number as well as the relative proportion of treatment
76 III, 10. 2. 1 | periodontitis.~ ~The high relative risk of oral disease relates
77 III, 10. 3. 1 | in significantly elevated relative risks to the cardiovascular,
78 III, 10. 3. 1 | Significantly elevated relative risks to the respiratory
79 III, 10. 3. 2 | of industrial chemicals relative to GDP for EU Member States
80 III, 10. 4. 5 | association. Increases in relative risk are difficult to detect
81 III, 10. 5. 1 | showering increases the relative humidity, the use of cleaning
82 III, 10. 5. 3 | enterprises’ non compliance with relative European legislation derives
83 III, 10. 5. 3 | cost of implementing the relative legislation.~The available
84 III, 10. 6. 2 | considerable increases of the relative excess risk of dying in
85 III, 10. 6. 2 | that the widening of the relative gap in death rates is generally
86 III, 10. 6. 2 | that this widening of the relative gap in death rates is generally
87 III, 10. 6. 2 | countries. Among women, however, relative inequalities in mortality
88 III, 10. 6. 3 | Firm conclusions about relative vulnerability are therefore
89 IV, 11. 1. 1 | an understanding of their relative effectiveness across countries
90 IV, 11. 1. 5 | value or cost-effectiveness relative to alternative interventions
91 IV, 11. 2. 2 | policy in Europe is the relative lack of evidence to support
92 IV, 11. 3. 2 | and India.~ ~Figure 11.4. Relative prices of drugs across EU25
93 IV, 11. 6. 2 | groups (Hills, 2000). The relative importance of indirect taxes
94 IV, 11. 6. 3 | taxation also depends on the relative role of national and local
95 IV, 11. 6. 4 | member to reflect their relative healthcare expenditure needs.
96 IV, 11. 6. 4 | level to measure: a) the relative sickness of their insured
97 IV, 11. 6. 4 | health authorities~Age, relative burden of illness: diabetes,
98 IV, 12. 2 | alcohol. ~ ~Maintaining the relative price of alcohol~ ~When
99 IV, 12. 2 | more expensive beverages if relative prices decrease, either
100 IV, 12. 10 | our legislation with the relative legislation of the European
101 IV, 13. 7. 2 | year, the EU improved its relative performance against the
