Case Study 1 Sample Clauses

Case Study 1. Xxxxx, a 45 year old female, works as a primary school teacher. She has been divorced from her husband for six months, and lives with her three children, aged 5, 7, and 9. She has been dating a man in her neighborhood, and reports him as her only new sex partner. She presents to the health facility today because her husband was recently diagnosed with TB, and she was told to come for HIV testing. Her last HIV test was during ANC, when she was pregnant with her last child. It was negative. She has a history of high blood pressure that is well managed with medication. Her HIV test is positive.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Case Study 1. The purpose of Case study 1 was to evaluate the impact of adherence on lipid panel changes (25% reduction from baseline for LDL, TC, and non-HDL). Adherence to statin medication was based on the medication possession ratio (MPR), the main exposure variable in the multivariate regression model. Lipid panel changes were measured at 12 months after initiation of a statin prescription and included low-density lipoproteins (LDL), non-high-density lipoprotein (non- HDL), and triglycerides (TG). Adherence was the main exposure variable of interest and was categorized into adherent or non- adherent based on an arbitrary MPR threshold level of 0.80. Patients who were at or above the threshold were considered adherent; patients who were below the threshold were considered non- adherent. MPR is a surrogate marker for adherence and does not indicate that the patient ingested the medication; however, several studies have reported that it provides an accurate depiction of patient adherence using pharmacy claims data.63,64 MPR was calculated as the number of days supplied of prescription medication divided by days of observation.63,64 MPR was right-skewed; however it was assumed that this would not violate the assumptions of the multiple logistic regression. The dependent variable was change in lipid panel levels which included LDL, non-HDL, and TG. Although these outcomes were continuous, the study categorized them into achieving a 25% reduction from baseline which is considered a clinically significant change.65,66 This level of reduction has been associated with improved clinical outcomes.
Case Study 1. In Case study 1, there was a moderate amount of missing data that ranged from 16% to 19% for individual variables. In the multivariate models, the initial sample size of 7,739 subjects was reduced to 6,074 (~22% missing) due to missing data. Crude analysis was performed to provide a reference for comparison with the complete-case analysis and multiple imputation method. The conclusions from the complete-case analysis were similar to the crude analysis. Further comparisons between the conclusions of the multiple imputation method and complete-case analysis were also similar controlling for age, BMI, gender, baseline lipid values, comorbid conditions (diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, angina, vascular disease), statin use, ethnicity, and starting medication count. In all scenarios, there were significant associations between adherence and achieving 25% reduction in lipid panel levels.
Case Study 1. In Case study 1, adherent patients were reported to have a higher odd of achieving 25% or more reduction in lipid panel levels relative to non-adherent patients controlling for potential confounding factors. Xxxxxxxxx, et al.36 reported similar findings in that patients who were adherence (MPR ≥ 0.80) had a significant reduction in LDL and non-HDL level relative to non- adherent patients in a veteran population. The use of multiple imputation did not change the conclusion of the complete-case analysis and crude analysis. However, it increased the sample size of the study and improved precision on the confidence limits when compared to the complete-case analysis. It also provided supporting evidence that the conclusions were appropriate and unaffected by missing data.

Related to Case Study 1

  • Case Study Upon Surgi-Vision’s prior written consent in each Instance, Cedara may devise a case-study of any Custom Engineering Services Projects, and may use such case-study for marketing of its engineering services to third parties.

  • The Study 2.1The parties must comply with, and conduct the Study in accordance with, the Protocol and any conditions of the Reviewing HREC. In addition the parties must comply with the following, as applicable:

  • Feasibility Study Buyer will, at Buyer's expense and within ____ days from Effective Date ("Feasibility Study Period"), determine whether the Property is suitable, in Buyer's sole and absolute discretion, for ___________________ use. During the Feasibility Study Period, Buyer may conduct a Phase I environmental assessment and any other tests, analyses, surveys and investigations ("Inspections") that Buyer deems necessary to determine to Buyer's satisfaction the Property's engineering, architectural and environmental properties; zoning and zoning restrictions; subdivision statutes; soil and grade; availability of access public roads, water, and other utilities; consistency with local, state and regional growth management plans, availability of permits, government approvals, and licenses; and other inspections that Buyer deems appropriate to determine the Property's suitability for the Buyer's intended use. If the Property must be rezoned, Buyer will obtain the rezoning from the appropriatx xxxernment agencies. Seller will sign all documents Buyer is required to file in connection with development or rezoning approvals. Seller gives Buyer, its agents, contractors and assigns, the right to enter the Property at any time during the Feasibility Study Period for the purpose of conducting inspections; provided, however, that Buyer, its agents, contractors and assigns enter the Property and conduct inspections at their own risk. Buyer will indemnify and hold Seller harmless from xxxxes, damages, costs, claims and expenses of any nature, including attorney's fees, expenses and liability incurred in application for rezoning or related proceedings, and from liability to any person, arising from the conduct of any and all inspections of any work authorized by Buyer. Buyer will not engage in any activity that xxxxx result in a construction lien being filed against the Property without Seller's prior written consent. If this transaction does not close, Buyer will, at Buyer's expense, (1) repair all damages to the Property resulting from the Inspections and return the Property to the condition it was in prior to conduct of the Inspections, and (2) release to Seller all reports and other work generated as a result of the Inspections. Buyer will deliver written notice to Seller prior to the expiration of the Feasibility Study Period of Buyer's determination of whether or not the Properxx xx acceptable. Buyer's failure to comply with this notice requirement will constitute acceptance of the Property as suitable for Buyer's intended use in its "as is" condition. If the Property is unacceptable to Buyer and written notice of this fact is timely delivered to Seller, this Contract will be deemed terminated as of the day after the Feasibility Study period ends and Buyer's deposit(s) will be returned after Escrow Axxxx receives proper authorization form all interested parties.

  • Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.

  • Study Population ‌ Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).

  • System Impact Study An assessment by the Transmission Provider of (i) the adequacy of the Transmission System to accommodate a Completed Application, an Interconnection Request or an Upgrade Request, (ii) whether any additional costs may be incurred in order to provide such transmission service or to accommodate an Interconnection Request, and (iii) with respect to an Interconnection Request, an estimated date that an Interconnection Customer’s Customer Facility can be interconnected with the Transmission System and an estimate of the Interconnection Customer’s cost responsibility for the interconnection; and (iv) with respect to an Upgrade Request, the estimated cost of the requested system upgrades or expansion, or of the cost of the system upgrades or expansion, necessary to provide the requested incremental rights.

  • Re-Study If Re-Study of the Interconnection Facilities Study is required due to a higher queued project dropping out of the queue or a modification of a higher queued project pursuant to Section 4.4, Transmission Provider shall so notify Interconnection Customer in writing. Such Re-Study shall take no longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the date of notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.

  • Phase 2 Phase 2 is expected to consist of Member Nodes and a select number of Nodes operated by non-Members. The non-Member Nodes will be required to comply with Node hosting terms as set forth by the Council, which may be amended from time to time (the “General Node Terms”).

  • Study Area The study area focused on the Bulk Power System in South-Eastern New York between Albany and New York City, and voltages underlying systems at 115 kV and above in the lower Xxxxxx Valley (Zones G, H & I). In the PSS™E power flow base case provided by NYISO, facilities rated at 115 kV and above in PSS™E designated areas 6 through 11 are monitored in the study. These areas are: • Capital District • Xxxxxx • Millwood • Xxxxxxxxx • Con Ed • Long Island

  • Clinical Trials The studies, tests and preclinical and clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of, or sponsored by, the Company, or in which the Company has participated, that are described in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, or the results of which are referred to in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, were and, if still pending, are being conducted in all material respects in accordance with protocols, procedures and controls pursuant to, where applicable, accepted professional and scientific standards for products or product candidates comparable to those being developed by the Company and all applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the FDA, the EMEA, Health Canada and other comparable drug and medical device (including diagnostic product) regulatory agencies outside of the United States to which they are subject; the descriptions of the results of such studies, tests and trials contained in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus do not contain any misstatement of a material fact or omit a material fact necessary to make such statements not misleading; the Company has no knowledge of any studies, tests or trials not described in the Disclosure Package and the Prospectus the results of which reasonably call into question in any material respect the results of the studies, tests and trials described in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or Prospectus; and the Company has not received any notices or other correspondence from the FDA, EMEA, Health Canada or any other foreign, state or local governmental body exercising comparable authority or any Institutional Review Board or comparable authority requiring or threatening the termination, suspension or material modification of any studies, tests or preclinical or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of, or sponsored by, the Company or in which the Company has participated, and, to the Company’s knowledge, there are no reasonable grounds for the same. Except as disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, there has not been any violation of law or regulation by the Company in its respective product development efforts, submissions or reports to any regulatory authority that could reasonably be expected to require investigation, corrective action or enforcement action.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.