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   |   enterprisesnon 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