Sentences with phrase «with differences in outcomes»

(PDF - 314 KB) Baker Focal Point, 17 (1), 2003 Review of why race / ethnicity is associated with varying rates of service utilization and with differences in outcomes on standardized measures.

It has been unknown whether participation in a neonatal RCT is independently associated with differences in outcomes.

Not exact matches

But we demean and diminish the standouts and the ones who will really make a difference in our lives when we insist on lumping them with the rest of the mediocre pack while pretending that the world doesn't care about outcomes.

And when things go wrong between co-founders, as with most things in life, a little planning up front can mean the difference between a catastrophic vs. merely painful outcome.»

[01:10] Introduction [02:45] James welcomes Tony to the podcast [03:35] Tony's leap year birthday [04:15] Unshakeable delivers the specific facts you need to know [04:45] What James learned from Unshakeable [05:25] Most people panic when the stock market drops [05:45] Getting rid of your fear of investing [06:15] Last January was the worst opening, but it was a correction [06:45] You are losing money when you sell on corrections [06:55] Bear markets come every 5 years on average [07:10] The greatest opportunity for a millennial [07:40] Waiting for corrections to invest [08:05] Warren Buffet's advice for investors [08:55] If you miss the top 10 trading days a year... [09:25] Three different investor scenarios over a 20 year period [10:40] The best trading days come after the worst [11:45] Investing in the current world [12:05] What Clinton and Bush think of the current situation [12:45] The office is far bigger than the occupant [13:35] Information helps reduce fear [14:25] James's story of the billionaire upset over another's wealth [14:45] What money really is [15:05] The story of Adolphe Merkle [16:05] The story of Chuck Feeney [16:55] The importance of the right mindset [17:15] What fuels Tony [19:15] Find something you care about more than yourself [20:25] Make your mission to surround yourself with the right people [21:25] Suffering made Tony hungry for more [23:25] By feeding his mind, Tony found strength [24:15] Great ideas don't interrupt you, you have to pursue them [25:05] Never - ending hunger is what matters [25:25] Richard Branson is the epitome of hunger and drive [25:40] Hunger is the common denominator [26:30] What you can do starting right now [26:55] Success leaves clues [28:10] What it means to take massive action [28:30] Taking action commits you to following through [29:40] If you do nothing you'll learn nothing [30:20] There must be an emotional purpose behind what you're doing [30:40] How does Tony ignite creativity in his own life [32:00] «How is not as important as «why» [32:40] What and why unleash the psyche [33:25] Breaking the habit of focusing on «how» [35:50] Deep Practice [35:10] Your desired outcome will determine your action [36:00] The difference between «what» and «why» [37:00] Learning how to chunk and group [37:40] Don't mistake movement for achievement [38:30] Tony doesn't negotiate with his mind [39:30] Change your thoughts and change your biochemistry [40:00] The bad habit of being stressed [40:40] Beautiful and suffering states [41:50] The most important decision is to live in a beautiful state no matter what [42:40] Consciously decide to take yourself out of suffering [43:40] Focus on appreciation, joy and love [44:30] Step out of suffering and find the solution [45:00] Dealing with mercury poisoning [45:40] Tony's process for stepping out of suffering [46:10] Stop identifying with thoughts — they aren't yours [47:40] Trade your expectations for appreciation [50:00] The key to life — gratitude [51:40] What is freedom for you?

Just published in the journal the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups — with the outcomes for children of h0m0 rated «suboptimal in almost every category

Semantic differences between «will» and «choice» aside, it has been pointed out that problems in trying to reconcile divine will with free choice arise from an inappropriate, anthropomorphic conception of God, who supposedly causes all events and decides all outcomes.

The contemporary inclination to do away with all differences in eternity in favor of egalitarian conceptions of external life (an outcome of 16th - century Protestant understandings of the spiritual body) has encouraged us to abandon serious reflection on the notion of bodily resurrection.

It shouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the cookie - nor should sprinkling with sugar.

I love this organic line, well worth paying a little extra, they are bursting with fresh flavor and aroma and make a huge difference in the outcome of all your cooking efforts.

These guys have been around the block before and with the right bounces can make a real difference in the outcome of the league this year.

However, recent practice suggests that if professionals systematically gather the young men's details by, for instance, routinely asking the mothers for them early in the pregnancy, develop interagency working while making child outcomes the focus of their work and mainstream engagement through the service (in this case, a teenage pregnancy service) while keeping good records and comprehensively assessing the young men's needs substantial numbers of young fathers can be reached with interventions that make a real difference.

Now, we know that with early diagnosis and early treatment, we can really make a difference in outcomes.

The pregnancy diet Bradley recommends (very healthy, high in protein) makes a big difference in health for the baby and mother and helps with a good birth outcome.

Flint and colleagues suggested that when midwives get to know the women for whom they provide care, interventions are minimised.22 The Albany midwifery practice, with an unselected population, has a rate for normal vaginal births of 77 %, with 35 % of women having a home birth.23 A review of care for women at low risk of complications has shown that continuity of midwifery care is generally associated with lower intervention rates than standard maternity care.24 Variation in normal birth rates between services (62 % -80 %), however, seems to be greater than outcome differences between «high continuity» and «traditional care» groups at the same unit.25 26 27 Use of epidural analgesia, for example, varies widely between Queen Charlotte's Hospital, London, and the North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Overall, there were no significant differences in the odds of the primary outcome for births planned in any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with planned births in obstetric units (table 3 ⇑).

For the restricted sample of women without any complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the odds of a primary outcome event were higher for births planned at home compared with planned obstetric unit births (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95 % confidence interval 1.01 to 2.52) but there was no evidence of a difference for either freestanding or alongside midwifery units compared with obstetric units.

For healthy multiparous women with a low risk pregnancy, there are no differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between planned births at home or in a midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric unit

There was no difference overall between birth settings in the incidence of the primary outcome (composite of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities), but there was a significant excess of the primary outcome in births planned at home compared with those planned in obstetric units in the restricted group of women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour.

Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units.

The strengths of the study include the ability to compare outcomes by the woman's planned place of birth at the start of care in labour, the high participation of midwifery units and trusts in England, the large sample size and statistical power to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes, the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias due to non-consent, the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk (according to current clinical guidelines) and to further increase the comparability of the groups by conducting an additional analysis restricted to women with no complicating conditions identified at the start of care in labour, and the ability to control for several important potential confounders.

Most studies of homebirth in other countries have found no statistically significant differences in perinatal outcomes between home and hospital births for women at low risk of complications.36, 37,39 However, a recent study in the United States showed poorer neonatal outcomes for births occurring at home or in birth centres.40 A meta - analysis in the same year demonstrated higher perinatal mortality associated with homebirth41 but has been strongly criticised on methodological grounds.5, 42 The Birthplace in England study, 43 the largest prospective cohort study on place of birth for women at low risk of complications, analysed a composite outcome, which included stillbirth and early neonatal death among other serious morbidity.

Similarly, an experiment pitting graduated extinction against «extinction with parental presence» found no difference in treatment outcomes (Matthey and Črnčec 2012).

Co-sleeping in the form of separate surface co-sleeping is protective, and there is no singular risk factor associated with bedsharing, as is often claimed, since how and by whom it is practiced makes an enormous difference in outcome.

Rates of obstetrical intervention are high in U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyseIn contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyses.

The aim of our study was to explore whether the initial preferred place of birth at the onset of pregnancy and model of care are associated with differences in the course of pregnancy and intrapartum interventions and birth outcomes.

To assess the robustness of the results of our regression analysis, we performed covariate adjustment with derived propensity scores to calculate the absolute risk difference (details are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).14, 15 To calculate the adjusted absolute risk difference, we used predictive margins and G - computation (i.e., regression - model — based outcome prediction in both exposure settings: planned in - hospital and planned out - of - hospital birth).16, 17 Finally, we conducted post hoc analyses to assess associations between planned out - of - hospital birth and outcomes (cesarean delivery and a composite of perinatal morbidity and mortality), which were stratified according to parity, maternal age, maternal education, and risk level.

We used multiple regression to estimate the differences in total cost between the settings for birth and to adjust for potential confounders, including maternal age, parity, ethnicity, understanding of English, marital status, BMI, index of multiple deprivation score, parity, and gestational age at birth, which could each be associated with planned place of birth and with adverse outcomes.12 For the generalised linear model on costs, we selected a γ distribution and identity link function in preference to alternative distributional forms and link functions on the basis of its low Akaike's information criterion (AIC) statistic.

Absolute inequality measures reflect not only inequalities across socioeconomic subgroups but also public health importance of the outcome in consideration, and they could provide different, even contradictory, patterns of inequalities from relative measures in a given outcome.21, 22 However, measuring absolute inequality is often neglected in health inequalities research.23 Relative risks (RRs) and absolute risk differences (RDs) of discontinuing breastfeeding among mothers with lower education compared with mothers with complete university education (reference category) were separately estimated in the intervention and in the control group and then compared between the two groups.

In a case - control study, researchers identify a group of cases (here, the babies who died of SIDS) and compare them to a control group of babies / families with similar characteristics to find out what could account for differences in outcomes (one group died from SIDS; one did notIn a case - control study, researchers identify a group of cases (here, the babies who died of SIDS) and compare them to a control group of babies / families with similar characteristics to find out what could account for differences in outcomes (one group died from SIDS; one did notin outcomes (one group died from SIDS; one did not).

In order to draw any conclusion about the differences between home and hospital births from the Canadian study, the home birth outcomes should have been compared with hospital outcomes only of women satisfying the same exclusion criteria.

While the study above says moms are spending too much time with their kids with no scientifically proven difference in their outcomes, a Highland Spring study of 10,000 families revealed parents are only spending 34 uninterrupted minutes a day with their children because of the stresses of daily life.

In two controlled trials conducted in Honduras, allocation to exclusive breastfeeding to six months of age compared with mixed breastfeeding from four to six months resulted in lower haemoglobin, ferritin, and hematocrit levels in infants, but no differences were found in anthropometric or morbidity outcomes, and mothers resumed menses later and lost more weigIn two controlled trials conducted in Honduras, allocation to exclusive breastfeeding to six months of age compared with mixed breastfeeding from four to six months resulted in lower haemoglobin, ferritin, and hematocrit levels in infants, but no differences were found in anthropometric or morbidity outcomes, and mothers resumed menses later and lost more weigin Honduras, allocation to exclusive breastfeeding to six months of age compared with mixed breastfeeding from four to six months resulted in lower haemoglobin, ferritin, and hematocrit levels in infants, but no differences were found in anthropometric or morbidity outcomes, and mothers resumed menses later and lost more weigin lower haemoglobin, ferritin, and hematocrit levels in infants, but no differences were found in anthropometric or morbidity outcomes, and mothers resumed menses later and lost more weigin infants, but no differences were found in anthropometric or morbidity outcomes, and mothers resumed menses later and lost more weigin anthropometric or morbidity outcomes, and mothers resumed menses later and lost more weight

The principal difference in outcome was the induction rate of 19 % in the hospital group compared with 8 % in the group booked for delivery at home.

Controlled trials of exclusive versus mixed breastfeeding for four to six months, developing countries Infant outcomes Growth Weight gain was not significantly different between infants assigned to continued exclusive breastfeeding to six months versus those assigned to mixed breastfeeding from four to six months, with a mean difference (MD) in weight gain from four to six months of 20.78 g / mo (95 % confidence interval (CI)-LSB--21.99 to 63.54], p = 0.34; 2 trials / 265 infants) and from six to 12 months of -2.62 g / mo (95 % CI -LSB--25.85 to 20.62], p = 0.83; 2 trials / 233 infants).

«There was no difference in the number of contacts between the high - and low - frequency treatment groups for women with non-missing data on breastfeeding outcomes.

A more recent Cochrane review compared lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) with «usual» care or another intervention and found no difference in any outcomes except the size of the baby.

For this mixed up group of GD women a Cochrane review concluded: «There is insufficient evidence to clearly identify if there are differences in health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their babies when elective birth is undertaken compared to waiting for labour to start spontaneously or until 41 weeks» gestation if all is well.»

In one key study, researchers at Stanford University and the University of Texas at Austin found that a simple, one - sentence note of encouragement made a huge difference in academic outcomes for African - American students, who often have fraught power relationships with teacherIn one key study, researchers at Stanford University and the University of Texas at Austin found that a simple, one - sentence note of encouragement made a huge difference in academic outcomes for African - American students, who often have fraught power relationships with teacherin academic outcomes for African - American students, who often have fraught power relationships with teachers.

Alternative Views: The largest study with the best scientific method showed NO difference in outcomes between colicky babies that had spinal manipulation and those that did not.

Women who have a CNM with them during labor and delivery have fewer interventions, such as continuous electronic fetal monitoring, epidurals, and episiotomies, without any difference in the outcomes for women or their babies.

Thus, it is not surprising that breastfeeding has been consistently associated with improved central nervous system development, as indicated by improved visual acuity in relationship to formula - fed infants.4 Second, both biological properties and differences in maternal - infant interactions during the feeding process can lead to improved motor and intellectual development outcomes.5, 6 Third, breastfeeding appears to be protective against the onset of childhood obesity, 7 a condition that has enormous psychosocial consequences for children.

Articles were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: 1) having been breastfed in infancy was compared with bottle (artificial) feeding, 2) systolic or diastolic blood pressure had been measured as an outcome, and 3) an estimate of the mean difference in blood pressure between breast - and bottle - fed groups could be extracted from the article.

The difference in total cholesterol between infant feeding groups varied slightly with the age of the subject at the outcome measurement.

The primary outcome with the largest difference in this sensitivity analysis was preterm birth, where an analysis restricted to trials with lower risk of bias suggested a larger treatment effect: RR 0.64, (95 % CI 0.51 to 0.81) compared with RR 0.77, (95 % CI 0.62 to 0.94) in the overall analysis.

Individual and group care models warrant additional study with a goal of demonstrating differences in outcomes and identifying populations that benefit most from specific care models.

Also, since most of the concern about non-citizen voters is ultimately driven by the concern of conservatives that non-citizen voters will flip elections for Democrats, it is worth noting that most counties with lots of non-citizen adults are also overwhelmingly Democratic by margins that far exceed the highest imaginable percentage of non-citizen voters in any reality based analysis, and another significant percentage of those counties are very safe Republican leaning counties, where again, non-citizen voters wouldn't make a difference in outcomes.

Therefore, given the exact same physical resources, two different people, due to differences in abilities and preferences, and chance, will end up with different outcomes.

This chimes with the views of others that AV would make only a modest difference to outcomes, likely to leave the Lib Dems at the next election somewhat better off at the expense of the Tories, especially in the South - West.

«It lines up very much with what economists like [Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Management] Robert Frank have been saying about people: Our intrinsic differences in talent are much smaller than the variability in outcomes.»