论文部分内容阅读
据Steven博士报道尽管证据有限,但是多数人认为,通过以下对每1 000人中的2人的沟通,是解决疾病风险的最好方式。本研究的目的是要比较在治疗中解决疾病风险时呈现出的自然规律、百分比或两者兼而有之的受益和伤害时的不同理解。平行组随机试验,在2009年9月通过互联网调查进行。一家专业调查公司的研究小组随机选取美国国家成年人样本约30 000个家庭进行试验。参加人员为2 944位年满18岁或以上的成年人(所有参与者均进行了完整随访)。通过制表提出5种数字格式的绝对疾病风险:自然频率(1 000人中的人数)、可变频率(100人中的人数,1 000人中的人数或10 000人中的人数,但需要保
According to Dr. Steven, although the evidence is limited, most believe that the best way to address the risk of a disease is through the following communication of two of every 1,000 people. The purpose of this study was to compare different understandings of the natural laws, percentages, or both, of benefits and injuries that arise when addressing disease risks in treatment. Parallel group randomized trials, conducted in September 2009 through Internet surveys. A research team from a professional research firm randomly selected about 30,000 families of the National Adult of the United States for testing. The total number of participants was 2 944 adults 18 years of age or older (all participants underwent a complete follow-up). The absolute disease risk for 5 digital formats is tabulated: natural frequency (number of people in 1,000), variable frequency (number of people in 100, number of people in 1000, or number of people in 10,000, but need Paul