Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1    I,     2. 10.  1|                may not be sufficient to measure the prevalence of diseases
 2   II,     4.  1    |                 based on the disability measure: limitation in activities
 3   II,     5.  3.  2|             EUROCARE project was set to measure and explain differences
 4   II,     5.  3.  8|                  Cancer prevalence, the measure of living people with a
 5   II,     5.  4.  2|               Despite the simplicity to measure such condition, mortality
 6   II,     5.  5.  3|            reviews~ ~It is difficult to measure incidence and prevalence.
 7   II,     5.  5.  3|                 in Europe~ ~ ~Country / Measure~Availability of data item?~ ~
 8   II,     5.  5.  3|            should support activities to measure disordered eating in Europe
 9   II,     5.  5.  3|                 is an important outcome measure for people with schizophrenia.
10   II,     5.  5.  3|                time. The methodology to measure prevalence and the case
11   II,     5.  5.  3|                scales have been used to measure disability in MS, aimed
12   II,     5.  9.  4|             European cities. It aims to measure exposures, collect information
13   II,     5. 10.  4|            linked to them and the first measure to limit the latter. On
14   II,     5. 12.  5|                drinking is also the key measure of secondary prevention
15   II,     5. 14.  3|             ability to chew (subjective measure) and difficulty to chew
16   II,     5. 14.  3|              chew hard foods (objective measure) have been found to be strongly
17   II,     5. 14.  3|   dissatisfaction with oral functioning measure. Studies have also shown
18   II,     5. 14.  3|            young people. The prevalence measure in a random sample of 1379
19   II,     6.  3.  2|             hospitals and services as a measure of own performance using
20   II,     6.  3.  5|                 an effective preventive measure. In Europe, the last case
21   II,     6.  3.  6|                 horses. As a preventive measure, all slaughtered pigs and
22   II,     6.  3.  7|                 and the main preventive measure is to minimise the risk
23   II,     7.  2    |               injuries that are used to measure trends and identify factors
24   II,     9        |                 an essential continuing measure to prevent congenital rubella
25   II,     9.  1.  2|            status could be an effective measure to prevent neural tube defects (
26   II,     9.  1.  2|                 an essential continuing measure to prevent congenital rubella
27   II,     9.  2.  2|               of indicators which would measure this subject, and adopted
28   II,     9.  2.  3|                to obtain any even crude measure of the comparable incidence
29   II,     9.  2.  3|                unable to take action to measure it. This is valid also for
30   II,     9.  2.  3|              However, by any individual measure under most European countries
31   II,     9.  2.  3|                uncovered. As an outcome measure of service failure, suicide
32   II,     9.  2.  7|           Towards A Common Framework To Measure Health Status. Eurostat/
33   II,     9.  3.  1|           Towards A Common Framework To Measure Health Status. Eurostat/
34   II,     9.  3.  2|                healthcare services must measure interventions implemented
35   II,     9.  3.  2|              medical birth registers to measure severe maternal morbidity.~ ~
36   II,     9.  5.  2|          principles of epidemiology can measure the status of health within
37   II,     9.  5.  6|           Towards A Common Framework To Measure Health Status. Eurostat/
38  III,    10.  1.  1| physical activity are both difficult to measure (Parsons et al, 1999; Titchenal,
39  III,    10.  2.  1|          interview survey instrument to measure smoking habits in a population,
40  III,    10.  2.  1|                formally introduced this measure as a response to health-risks
41  III,    10.  2.  1|              risk factor assessment may measure the potential of prevention.
42  III,    10.  2.  1|         universal or even commonly used measure or instrument yet (Bull
43  III,    10.  2.  1|                 questions are needed to measure activity (e.g. assessing
44  III,    10.  2.  1|                However, in Europe, this measure is mostly practised on a
45  III,    10.  2.  1|               countries, even mandatory measure. However, the industrial
46  III,    10.  2.  1|           reasons, many obesity studies measure the effect of interventions
47  III,    10.  2.  1|            incorporated in every policy measure. Obesity urgently needs
48  III,    10.  2.  4|                may not be sufficient to measure the prevalence of diseases
49  III,    10.  3.  1|                  This integrated health measure, which combines information
50  III,    10.  3.  1|       effectiveness of any preventative measure. Another source of radon
51  III,    10.  4.  1|               mortality, in adults. The measure of exposure combines the
52  III,    10.  4.  2|          Depending on the nature of the measure, food law, and in particular
53  III,    10.  4.  2|               law as appropriate to the measure under consideration.~ ~Risk
54  III,    10.  4.  2|                alert system of: (a) any measure they adopt which is aimed
55  III,    10.  4.  2|             dose-response curve and the measure(s) of intakes that would
56  III,    10.  4.  2|           legally allowed in foods. The measure of acute dietary exposure
57  III,    10.  5.  3|             1989 on the introduction of measure to encourage improvements
58  III,    10.  6.  1|            revised version of the OSS-3 measure of social support. The basic
59   IV,    11.  1.  1|                difficult to quantify or measure, the explicit goal is to
60   IV,    11.  1.  3|               mechanisms.~ ~In order to measure the health system’s contribution
61   IV,    11.  1.  3|             large-scale data sources to measure and improve health system
62   IV,    11.  1.  3|           criticisms of any approach to measure performance based on aggregate
63   IV,    11.  1.  3|                 incredibly difficult to measure and even more difficult
64   IV,    11.  1.  3|             health status indicators to measure performance (Retzlaff-Roberts
65   IV,    11.  1.  3|                 those based on a single measure may be misleading and uninformative,
66   IV,    11.  1.  3|              unsolved debates on how to measure and use performance data
67   IV,    11.  1.  3|                better understand how to measure performance and how to integrate
68   IV,    11.  1.  4|            health status is an adequate measure of health care need or that
69   IV,    11.  1.  5|          thereby differing in what they measure, but all enacted to meet
70   IV,    11.  1.  6|           development of an appropriate measure of efficiency in a complex
71   IV,    11.  1.  6|          attempted to generate a single measure of efficiency, or productivity
72   IV,    11.  1.  6|              innovative in developing a measure of health system productivity
73   IV,    11.  1.  6|                need. They serve both to measure the costs of treating a
74   IV,    11.  1.  6|               specifics of the case-mix measure and/or the application to
75   IV,    11.  2.  2|                 difficult to accurately measure and compare across countries.
76   IV,    11.  6.  3|             study has been conducted to measure the change in progressiveness
77   IV,    11.  6.  3|             2000 devised an alternative measure of fairness of healthcare
78   IV,    11.  6.  3|      expenditures at country level) and measure different things (proportionality
79   IV,    11.  6.  4|      information at individual level to measure: a) the relative sickness
80   IV,    11.  6.  4|              research it is possible to measure the quality of the healthcare
81   IV,    11.  6.  4|            situation that exists and to measure changes or trends over a
82   IV,    11.  6.  5|               Comment: Utilization as a measure of equity by Mooney, Hall,
83   IV,    11.  6.  5|                1991): "Utilisation as a measure of equity: Weighing heat?"
84   IV,    12.  1    |             against cancer contained 22 measure, covering the fields of
85   IV,    13.Acr    |                 difficult to accurately measure and compare across countries.
86   IV,    13.  6.  2|                 difficult to define and measure. Screening services and
87   IV,    13.  6.  2|                 however, a good outcome measure. But in general, assessing