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 WPAProgram
 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 reviewstatus: 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