Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

  1    I,     2.  3    |            life expectancy on the age distribution of the European population.~
  2    I,     2.  9    |         observed northward and uphill distribution shifts of many European
  3    I,     2.  9    |      substantial shifts in vegetation distribution. Changes in distribution
  4    I,     2.  9    |              distribution. Changes in distribution and the timing of seasonal
  5    I,     2.  9    |             Changes in the geographic distribution of the sandfly vector are
  6    I,     2. 10.  3|              the means of production, distribution and exchange. It has already
  7    I,     2. 10.  4|             can occur anywhere in the distribution system, although predominantly
  8    I,     2. 11    |           Social Inclusion and Income Distribution Final Report”. Report prepared
  9    I,     3.  2    |            life expectancy on the age distribution of the European population.~ ~
 10   II,     5.  2.  2|               MONICA for risk factors distribution.~Following the recommendations
 11   II,     5.  2.  3|             different prevalence, age distribution and risk factors.~In addition,
 12   II,     5.  2.  6|      information on the magnitude and distribution of the problem for both
 13   II,     5.  3.  3|          estimates do not reflect the distribution of clinical stages and cannot
 14   II,     5.  5.  1|           population had the same age distribution as the European standardised
 15   II,     5.  5.  2|             may be differences in the distribution of different kinds of dementia
 16   II,     5.  5.  3|             all ages with a worldwide distribution. Epilepsy is a symptom complex
 17   II,     5.  5.  3|        genetic susceptibility and the distribution of environmental risk factors
 18   II,     5.  5.  3|             of reports. The different distribution of epilepsy in men and women
 19   II,     5.  5.  3|            explained by the different distribution of epilepsy syndromes in
 20   II,     5.  5.  3|               5.2. Data sources~ ~The distribution of MS incidence and prevalence
 21   II,     5.  5.  3|              rates were reported.~The distribution of disability (Kurtzke,
 22   II,     5.  5.  3|         aggregated into PR-SP-MS. The distribution of the disease course consisted
 23   II,     5.  5.  3|        epidemiological patterns of MS distribution in time and space across
 24   II,     5.  5.  3|              details as to prevalence distribution by country, gender, age,
 25   II,     5.  5.  3|            gender, age, and incidence distribution by Country, where available.~ ~
 26   II,     5.  5.  3|                A correlation with the distribution of environmental exposure
 27   II,     5.  5.  3|    hypothesized.~Norway has an uneven distribution of prevalence and incidence,
 28   II,     5.  5.  3|             periods. The geographical distribution of MS prevalence was heterogeneous
 29   II,     5.  5.  3| northeast-to-southwest gradient of MS distribution in France was shown with
 30   II,     5.  5.  3|             rates, indicating a focal distribution of MS in ethnic groups with
 31   II,     5.  5.  3|        Sardinia, insular Italy.~ ~The distribution of MS in Europe by disease
 32   II,     5.  5.  3|             reported prevalence-based distribution of disease course is reported
 33   II,     5.  5.  3|       selected EUGLOREH countries~The distribution of MS in Europe by severity~
 34   II,     5.  5.  3|         severity~The prevalence-based distribution of disease severity indicated
 35   II,     5.  5.  3|              prevalence rates, on the distribution of prevalent cases by disease
 36   II,     5.  5.  3|        north-to-south gradient in the distribution of MS prevalence rates across
 37   II,     5.  5.  3|             might play a role in such distribution, biological factors, i.e.,
 38   II,     5.  5.  3|      underlying the differences in MS distribution.~A general methodological
 39   II,     5.  5.  3|           living.~ ~Figure 5.5.3.5.1. Distribution of total cost of MS in Europe (
 40   II,     5.  5.  3|             each of them a score. The distribution of the scores over the functional
 41   II,     5.  5.  3|     prevalence of multiple sclerosis, distribution of clinical forms of the
 42   II,     5.  5.  3|               particular, data on the distribution of the extent of the disease
 43   II,     5.  5.  3|             studies (Table 5.5.3.6.3. Distribution of Parkinson’s disease cases
 44   II,     5.  5.  3|          classified as stage HYV. The distribution of PD severity in Europe
 45   II,     5.  5.  3|             1986).~ ~Table 5.5.3.6.3. Distribution of Parkinson’s disease cases
 46   II,     5.  6.  4|              5.6.11).~ ~Table 5.6.11. Distribution (in per cent) of people
 47   II,     5.  6.  4|           Conditions)~ ~Table 5.6.12. Distribution (in per cent) of people
 48   II,     5.  6.  6|           Mueller WH (1990): Body fat distribution and osteoarthritis. Am J
 49   II,     5.  7.  4|        affected by the age and gender distribution in the general population,
 50   II,     5.  7.  7|             Lin RB, Murray CJ (2004): Distribution of major health risks: findings
 51   II,     5.  9.  4|         significant difference in sex distribution changes between older and
 52   II,     5.  9.  4|    geo-climatic conditions and on the distribution of the different aeroallergens.
 53   II,     5. 11.  2|          research into the causes and distribution of skin diseases within
 54   II,     5. 11.  3|         Lambeth study found a bimodal distribution of eczema prevalence thought
 55   II,     5. 11.  3|           prevalence showed a bimodal distribution to the Lambeth study probably
 56   II,     5. 14.  1|               has further enabled the distribution of periodontitis in various
 57   II,     5. 14.  2|              the global frequency and distribution of dental caries are complicated
 58   II,     5. 14.  3|              in this regard (1%). The distribution of generalized forms was
 59   II,     5. 15.  3|        description and analysis~ ~The distribution of RD prevalence is skewed
 60   II,     6.  3.  5|     occurrence of the disease and the distribution of serotypes.~ ~Invasive
 61   II,     6.  3.  5|        highest rates. The age and sex distribution varied across countries,
 62   II,     6.  3.  6|   consequently, in the production and distribution of foods) have led to the
 63   II,     6.  3.  7|               disease has a worldwide distribution and in the most recent years,
 64   II,     8.  1.  2|             as well as the percentage distribution of certain characteristics
 65   II,     9        |               the extremes of the age distribution. The risk of many adverse
 66   II,     9.  1.  1|             plurality~C: birth weight distribution by vital status, gestational
 67   II,     9.  1.  1|          plurality~C: Gestational age distribution by vital status, plurality~
 68   II,     9.  1.  1|               congenital anomalies~R: Distribution of APGAR score at 5 minutes~
 69   II,     9.  1.  1|               by number of fetuses~C: Distribution of maternal age~C: Distribution
 70   II,     9.  1.  1|       Distribution of maternal age~C: Distribution of parity~R: Percentage
 71   II,     9.  1.  1|             smoke during pregnancy~R: Distribution of motherseducation~F:
 72   II,     9.  1.  1|              of motherseducation~F: Distribution of mothers' country of origin~
 73   II,     9.  1.  1|               Health care services~C: Distribution of births by mode of delivery
 74   II,     9.  1.  1|      following fertility treatment~R: Distribution of timing of 1st antenatal
 75   II,     9.  1.  1|             of 1st antenatal visit~R: Distribution of births by mode of onset
 76   II,     9.  1.  1|            mode of onset of labour~R: Distribution of place of birth~R: Percentage
 77   II,     9.  1.  2|               the extremes of the age distribution. The risk of many adverse
 78   II,     9.  3.  1|           less problematic gynoid fat distribution” (WHO, 2000, p.6), and with
 79  III,    10.  2.  1|              10.2.1.3.8. Trend in the distribution of new clients entering
 80  III,    10.  2.  1|            injecting. The exchange or distribution of syringes is in general
 81  III,    10.  2.  1|          facilities. The geographical distribution of needle and syringe programme
 82  III,    10.  2.  1|    pharmacy-based syringe exchange or distribution schemes. The overall turnover
 83  III,    10.  2.  1|               replaced by a more even distribution. And in some countries among
 84  III,    10.  2.  1|             form the most significant distribution channel, account for 47.
 85  III,    10.  2.  1|            can lead to changes in the distribution of BMI data, as well as
 86  III,    10.  2.  1|    improvements in food transport and distribution. Developments in food processing
 87  III,    10.  2.  1|             nutrient intake and their distribution over various well-defined
 88  III,    10.  2.  1|             obesity and abdominal fat distribution in Greek adults. Annals
 89  III,    10.  2.  5|           lead to a reduction of body distribution volume of water-soluble
 90  III,    10.  2.  5|      substances and to an increase of distribution volume of fat-soluble substances.
 91  III,    10.  3.  4|                  Figure 10.3.4.1. The distribution of excess mortality during
 92  III,    10.  4.  1|         presents the total population distribution of annual PM10 concentrations
 93  III,    10.  4.  1|            the 2002-2004 period. This distribution is an approximation of the
 94  III,    10.  4.  1|               an approximation of the distribution of the exposure of children
 95  III,    10.  4.  2|              food/feed production and distribution.~ ~The food law aims at
 96  III,    10.  4.  2|         information”.~ ~An electronic distribution list called “OIE-Info” has
 97  III,    10.  4.  2|                methodology and uneven distribution of microorganisms, microbiological
 98  III,    10.  4.  2|               a distinct geographical distribution of cases and related risk
 99  III,    10.  4.  2|            production, processing and distribution stages of the food chain.~ ~
100  III,    10.  4.  2|            production, processing and distribution. Member States shall also
101  III,    10.  4.  2|            production, processing and distribution.~ ~On the 29th April 2004,
102  III,    10.  4.  3|             and natural disasters and distribution systems have to be designed
103  III,    10.  4.  3|             of micro-organisms in the distribution systems as well as to leaks
104  III,    10.  4.  3|             of micro-organisms in the distribution system. Another cause is
105  III,    10.  4.  3|               of contamination in the distribution network and the domestic
106  III,    10.  4.  3|              network and the domestic distribution system. These objectives
107  III,    10.  4.  3|          introduced through the water distribution system. Arsenic, as a contaminant
108  III,    10.  4.  5|             Figure 10.4.5.2.4).~ ~The distribution of the sources of soil pollution
109  III,    10.  4.  5|               proposal as well as the distribution of those effects. Understanding
110  III,    10.  4.  5|       appreciation of inequity in the distribution of exposure among population
111  III,    10.  5.  2|           Figure 10.5.2.1. Population distribution per settlement structure
112  III,    10.  5.  2|              difference in the gender distribution, while for what concerns
113  III,    10.  5.  2|       confounding factors such as age distribution are often not adequately
114  III,    10.  5.  2|             Conditions (2006)~ ~ ~The distribution of reported problems clearly
115  III,    10.  5.  3|              data on the differential distribution of morbidity and mortality
116  III,    10.  5.  3|              groups. Among these, the distribution of costs depends very much
117  III,    10.  5.  3|              the means of production, distribution and exchange. It has already
118  III,    10.  6.  2|        related to occupation follow a distribution similar to those due to
119   IV,    11.  1.  1|              a population or the fair distribution of the financial burden
120   IV,    11.  1.  4|              efficiency, but also the distribution of financial burden across
121   IV,    11.  1.  4|          across income groups and the distribution of health care use and accessibility
122   IV,    11.  1.  4|    geographical factors including the distribution of services and individuals’
123   IV,    11.  1.  4|               show a disproportionate distribution of utilization favouring
124   IV,    11.  1.  4|             in most countries, or the distribution of GP visits is pro-poor,
125   IV,    11.  1.  6|              outputs and not with the distribution of these outputs. It can
126   IV,    11.  3.  1|               also their geographical distribution within the country is an
127   IV,    11.  3.  1|            experience inequity in the distribution of physicians, typically
128   IV,    11.  6.  2|               the whole of the income distribution in a country rather than
129   IV,    11.  6.  3|             and Van Ourti, 2003). The distribution of the financial burden
130   IV,    11.  6.  4|                    Redistribution (or distribution) from pooling to purchasers
131   IV,    11.  6.  4|               relate to equity (equal distribution of resources of funds, ensuring
132   IV,    11.  6.  5|          Zandvakili S (1994): "Income distribution and redistribution through
133   IV,    12. 10    |      framework covers the production, distribution and application of licensed
134   IV,    12. 10    |             1987 (Marketing, Sale and Distribution of Fuels) (Amendment) Regulations
135   IV,    12. 10    |             1987 (Marketing, Sale and Distribution of Fuels) (Amendment) Regulations
136   IV,    12. 10    |          setting up of pavilions, the distribution of leaflets and small advertising
137   IV,    12. 10    |               CAMS - RECYCLING is the distribution - to the citizens of the
138   IV,    12. 10    |            Early abortions~Percentage distribution of performed abortions by
139   IV,    13.  7    |         devices. Their collection and distribution raise many ethical issues.