Figures and Tables. Figure 1. Research papers published between 1999 and July 3, 2012 utilizing data from immunization information systems, identified through a review of a CDC database [54] and PubMed, with searches conducted between February 13, 2012 and July 3, 2012.
Figures and Tables. Table 1. Sample characteristics 32 Table 2. Multivariate linear regressions results for GS/Inc 33 Table 3. Multivariate linear regressions results for GR/Inc 35 Table 4. Multivariate linear regressions results for GS/GR. 36 Figure 1.Distribution of GS/Inc 38 Figure 2.Distribution of GR/Inc 38 Figure 3.Distribution of GS/GR. 39 Figure 4.Comparison of GS/Inc and other expenditure / Inc 39 Gift or Burden: Economics of gift-exchange in China
Figures and Tables. Figures Page Figure 1 – School budget increase 12 Figure 2 - Prioritisation of Social Services for additional investment 12 Figure 3 – Fees and Charges 13 Figure 4 – Comments on Fees and Charges 14 Figure 5 – Comments on Council Services 15 Figure 6 – Council Tax 17 Figure 7 – Council Tax Level 19 Figure 8 – Efficiency Strategy Agreement 20 Figure 9 – Efficiency Comments 22 Figure 10 – Manager Efficiency Agreement 23 Figure 11 – Council Reserves Strategy 23 Figure 12 – Council Areas of Focus 25 Figure 13 – Quick Poll 1: Council Tax Increase 26 Figure 14 – Respondent Categories 27 Figure 15 – Trailer 28 Figure 16 – Comments Received at Face-to-Face Events 29 Figure 17 - Council Fees and Charges slide 33 Figure 18 - Priorities presentation slide 35 Figure 19 - Efficiencies presentation slide 39 Figure 20 - Schools Budget presentation slide 39 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This section provides a summary of the main findings from the Phase 1 Budget Consultation 2024/25. • The consultation was conducted in-house and ran from the 14th November to 19th December 2023. • The following methods were used;
Figures and Tables. Figures and tables are welcome in the text as they can help the reader in understanding or get an overview of the text. This is especially the case if there are many numbers in the text or if the text explains about causal or other relationships. All figures and tables must be assigned a number and a title. In addition, a reference for numbers used or where the figure is taken from must be given along with the table or figure. If you have produced a figure yourself, it is often preferable to indicate “own work” as source. By this, there will be no confusion about the source.
Figures and Tables. Figure 1: The four consultations for voluntary termination of pregnancy (Interrupción Voluntaria del Embarazo, IVE) in the Uruguayan healthcare system including the timeline established by the law 18.987 that decriminalized abortion in 2012.
Figures and Tables. Table 3-1 Terminal digit preference expressed as percentage of anthropometrists’ first measurement for height, head circumference and arm circumference ending in .0 to .9 compared to the expected 10% among children 0-4.9 years (n=948 observations from 474 children), BINA 2017 Height Head Circumference Arm Circumference Terminal Digit (tenths place) % Observed % Observed - % Expected P-Value % Observed % Observed - % Expected P-Value % Observed % Observed - % Expected P-Value 1 9.2 -0.8 0.45 9.2 -0.8 0.45 10.7 0.7 0.48 2 11.2 1.2 0.23 11.2 1.2 0.23 8.4 -1.6 0.12 3 10.2 0.2 0.79 10.1 0.1 0.87 9.8 -0.2 0.91 4 14.3 4.3 0.00 14.3 4.3 0.00 14.6 4.6 0.00 5 9.7 -0.3 0.83 6.8 -3.2 0.00 6.4 -3.6 0.00 6 9.8 -0.2 0.91 9.8 -0.2 0.91 12.3 2.3 0.02 7 9.8 -0.2 0.91 9.6 -0.4 0.75 11.6 1.6 0.10 8 9.1 -0.9 0.36 13.3 3.3 0.00 9.7 -0.3 0.83 9 8.1 -1.9 0.06 10.8 0.8 0.42 10.5 0.5 0.55 Table 3-2 Mean z-score, standard deviation, and test of equal variance between age groups for height-for-age (HAZ), weight-for- height (WHZ), weight-for-age (WAZ), arm circumference-for-age (ACZ), and head circumference-for-age (HCZ) from manual measurements (n=474), BINA 2017 Total (0-4.9 years) Less than 2 years (U2) 2-4.9 years (O2) Difference in Variance (Xxxxxx'x Test) n Mean z-score Standard Deviation (SD) n Mean z-score Standard Deviation n Mean z- score Standard Deviation U2 SD- O2 SD F P-Value Height-for-age 474 -0.29 1.07 223 -0.42 1.10 251 -0.18 1.03 0.08 0.12 0.73 Weight-for-height 472 0.34 0.92 222 0.32 0.88 250 0.35 0.96 -0.08 0.87 0.35 Repeated measure mean Weight-for-age 474 0.06 1.04 223 -0.05 1.02 251 0.17 1.05 -0.04 0.26 0.61 Arm circumference-for- age 385 0.78 0.94 135 0.84 0.92 250 0.75 0.95 -0.03 <0.01 0.93 Head circumference-for- age 474 0.24 1.02 223 0.11 1.01 251 0.35 1.01 0.00 0.32 0.57 Height-for-age 474 -0.30 1.08 223 -0.43 1.11 251 -0.17 1.02 0.09 <0.01 0.96 Weight-for-height 471 0.34 0.95 221 0.34 0.92 250 0.34 0.97 -0.05 0.38 0.54 Single measure Weight-for-age 474 0.06 1.04 223 -0.05 1.01 251 0.17 1.05 -0.04 0.31 0.58 Arm circumference-for- age 385 0.78 0.97 135 0.85 0.98 250 0.75 0.96 0.02 0.25 0.62 Head circumference-for- age 474 0.24 1.04 223 0.11 1.04 251 0.36 1.03 0.01 0.52 0.47 45.0% 41.6%41.8% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 23.4% 21.8% 20.0% 15.0% 9.6% 9.9% 10.0% 7.0% 7.6% 5.0% 3.6% 4.7% 2.8% 3.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
Figures and Tables. Table 4-1 Sample characteristics, BINA 2017 Age Groups Newborn (<1 month) 82 (17%) 1-11.9 months 66 (14%) 1-1.9 years 75 (16%) 2-2.9 years 85 (18%) 3-4.9 years 166 (35%) Sex Female 228 (48%) Race Black 201 (42%) White 134 (28%) Asian 40 (8%) Multiple, Other or Not Reported 99 (21%) Ethnicity Non-Hispanic 385 (81%) Hispanic 77 (16%) Not Reported 12 (3%) Anthropometric Indices
Figures and Tables. 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 ARI 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 K−means 0.1 K−modes, standard K−modes, Jaccard 0 K Figure 3.1: ARI by K and clustering algorithm for partitions of the empiric data set (Study 1). K−means K−modes, standard K−modes, Jaccard 1 0.8 0.6 ARI 0.4 0.2 X X−means K−modes, standard K−modes, Jaccard K−means K−modes, standard K−modes, Jaccard 1 1 0.8 0.8 ARI ARI 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 K 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K Figure 3.2: ARI by K and clustering algorithm for Study 2 simulations from Scenarios A (upper left), B (lower left), and C (lower right). K−means K−modes, standard K−modes, Jaccard K−means K−modes, standard K−modes, Jaccard 1 1 0.8 0.8 ARI ARI 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K
Figures and Tables. Table 1. Summary statistics Coliforms E. coli Enterococcus Mean microbial concentration (± SD) Sample unit No. of samples No. (%)positive No. of samples No. (%) positive No. of samples No. (%) positive Coliforms (log10 CFU) E. coli (log10 CFU) Enterococcus (log10 CFU) Tomato before harvest Irrigation Water cfu/100 mL 21 21 (100%) 21 14 (67%) 21 19 (90%) 1.57 (± 0.78) 0.24 (± 0.86) 0.41 (± 0.71) Produce cfu/fruit 23 22 (96%) 23 3 (13%) 23 18 (78%) 4.97 (± 1.73) 0.14 (± 1.19) 3.35 (± 1.67) Soil cfu/gram 23 21 (91%) 23 3 (13%) 23 14 (61%) 2.37 (± 0.86) 0.48 (± 0.90) 1.50 (± 0.75) Tomato after harvest Hand-rinse cfu/hand 23 22 (96%) 23 5 (22%) 23 23 (100%) 5.69 (± 1.88) 1.70 (± 1.54) 6.29 (± 1.43) Produce cfu/fruit 23 23 (100%) 23 1 (4%) 23 19 (83%) 5.06 (± 1.77) 0.07 (± 1.23) 3.79 (± 1.59) Jalapeño before harvest Irrigation Water cfu/100 mL 13 11 (85%) 13 3 (23%) 13 12 (92%) 1.53 (± 1.34) -0.47 (± 0.55) 0.65 (± 1.07) Produce cfu/fruit 19 18 (95%) 19 3 (16%) 19 14 (74%) 4.21 (± 2.45) 0.12 (± 1.18) 3.42 (± 1.83) Soil cfu/gram 19 18 (95%) 19 1 (5%) 19 10 (53%) 2.73 (± 1.22) 0.13 (± 1.05) 1.39 (± 0.56) Jalapeño after harvest Hand-rinse cfu/hand 19 18 (95%) 19 8 (42%) 19 19 (100%) 5.00 (± 2.36) 2.08 (± 1.56) 5.73 (± 1.42) Produce cfu/fruit 19 18 (95%) 19 1 (5%) 19 16 (84%) 3.92 (± 2.88) 0.04 (± 0.98) 3.80 (± 2.00) Cantaloupe before harvest Irrigation Water cfu/100 mL 38 35 (92%) 38 12 (32%) 38 29 (76%) 1.74 (± 1.51) -0.17 (± 0.93) 0.53 (± 1.49) Produce cfu/fruit 37 37 (100%) 37 15 (41%) 37 37 (100%) 6.51 (± 1.01) 2.34 (± 1.86) 7.16 (± 1.53) Soil cfu/gram 38 38 (100%) 38 13 (34%) 38 31 (82%) 2.51 (± 1.21) -0.58 (± 1.07) 1.30 (± 1.23) Cantaloupe after harvest Hand-rinse cfu/hand 38 38 (100%) 38 16 (42%) 38 38 (100%) 6.46 (± 1.51) 2.66 (± 1.89) 7.04 (± 1.71) Produce cfu/fruit 38 38 (100%) 38 11 (29%) 38 38 (100%) 6.18 (± 1.24) 2.23 (± 1.89) 7.11 (± 1.47)
Figures and Tables. Figure 1. Conceptual Model Applying Empowerment Theory in Latino and Hispanic Community Democratic Deliberation Table 1. Participant characteristics from community deliberation group (n=33) Member Characteristics Total (n=33) Gender Female Male 29 (88%) 4 (12%) Age 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-00 60-69 5 (15%) 12 (37%) 8 (24%) 5 (15%) 3 (9%) Education Some High School High School Graduate Some college College graduate Postgraduate work Prefer not to respond 2 (6%) 5 (15%) 3 (9%) 17 (52%) 3 (9%) 3 (9%) Employment status* Unemployed Self-employed Employed Retired 11 (33%) 7 (21%) 15 (46%) 0 (0%) Time living in Gwinnett County Less than 1 year 1-5 years More than 5 years 8 (24%) 11 (33%) 14 (43%) Race Black or African American White Other 5 (15%) 15 (46%) 12 (36%) Country of Origin Brazil Colombia Dominican Republic Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Peru Puerto Rico Venezuela 1 (3%) 7 (21%) 4 (12%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 9 (28%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 4 (12%) Preferred Language at Home English Spanish Other 3 (9%) 28 (85%) 1 (3%) Primary care in FQHC Yes No Don’t Know 5 (15%) 27 (82%) 1 (3%) Member of church Yes No 16 (49%) 17 (51%) Prior experience with Committees Yes No 14 (42%) 19 (58%) Experience voting in Local & National Elections* Always Sometimes Never 8 (24%) 7 (21%) 17 (52%) *Missing 1 response Table 2. Deliberation Impacts on Participants Survey Measures Baseline Post-Deliberation Overall P-Value N Mean STD Max N Mean STD Max Mean Diff Alpha=0.05 Community agency 30 20.83 4.79 30 31 22.03 3.32 30 1.2 0.217 Self-efficacy to deliberate 31 25.97 4.28 30 31 28.35 2.21 30 2.38 0.0002* Perceived HBOC Knowledge 31 20.39 5.59 25 32 22.53 4.21 25 2.14 0.107 Perceived benefit of HBOC screening 31 18.35 2.3 25 28 17.86 1.94 25 -0.49 0.839 Willingness to… Complete a 6-question HBOC family screening form 33 4.55 0.87 5 33 4.82 0.53 5 0.27 0.0831 Meet with a genetic counselor if screening identifies a risk for HBOC 33 4.79 0.48 5 33 4.88 0.42 5 0.09 0.4138 Undergo genetic testing through blood sample 33 4.76 0.56 5 33 4.79 0.48 5 0.03 0.8007 Table 3. Qualitative Analysis Codebook Qualitative Codebook guided by Empowerment Theory Process Mechanism Code/Subcodes Definition English Quote (translated) Spanish Quote
