ライフサイエンスコーパス: group discussion

1 Strength-of-evidence assessment was done by group discussion.

2 g, and those readings were then the topic of group discussion.

3 ining period for individualized feedback and group discussion.

4 0 semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions.

5 tool that engages patients with diabetes in group discussions about diabetes-related topics, has ove

6 The social support intervention involved a group discussion after CPR training with regular telepho

7 Weekly group discussions among research team members were admin

8 ce-based information, followed by structured group discussion and anonymous consensus voting.

9 ved at best-practice recommendations through group discussion and voting.

10 protocols and guidelines availability, focus group discussions and administration of a structured que

11 ients, families, and providers through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

12 We held focus group discussions and key informant interviews with pare

13 n lie detection comes through the process of group discussion, and is not a product of aggregating in

14 the MPWG following review of the literature, group discussions, and a structured Delphi method consen

15 Data gathered from an online survey, focus group discussions, and previously collected data from in

16 and simple synergistic approach of enabling group discussion before rendering a judgment.

17 earch, comprising in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, behavior trials, and a combination of

18 Consensus was achieved by group discussion confirmed by a voice vote.

19 Focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (K

20 Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted with CHWs,

21 MAIN FINDINGS: During 2010-11 over 25 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with clan leaders, tr

22 (ii) to obtain a consensus opinion following group discussions (iii) to capture complementary qualita

23 used semistructured questionnaires and focus group discussions in 1 rural and 1 urban local governmen

24 t a 2-day meeting were followed by extensive group discussions in which consensus emerged.

25 ehold heads of the new houses and five focus group discussions including neighbours of each group of

26 who influenced peers through small and large group discussions, informal consultations, and revisions

27 Focus group discussions, interviews, recipe documentation, foo

28 cted via interviews with older people, focus group discussions involving staff, suggestion box commen

29 ng of grand rounds, a chart reminder system, group discussion of case scenarios, monitoring, and feed

30 were of moderate duration and involved small group discussion of dilemmas.

31 Group discussion of the topics engaged students in the l

32 ntists are periodically recalibrated through group discussions of the clinical measurements' definiti

33 Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and

34 approximately 60 researchers participated in group discussions that aimed to provide a critical self-

35 rom an application's preliminary ratings and group discussion to final ratings provided by all panel

36 Individual ratings were compared in group discussions to achieve consensus about the classif

37 t observation, interviews, story telling and group discussions to actively engage older people, relat

38 The control condition, STAR, is a supportive group discussion treatment.Main Outcome Measure The prim

39 Audiotapes of four group discussions were analysed.

40 Focus group discussions were conducted to explain the quantita

41 in-depth individual interviews and 23 focus group discussions were conducted.

42 Six focus group discussions were held with patients with advanced

43 Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and coded.

44 Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim.

45 Focus group discussions were undertaken with 18 males; 40+ yea

46 Based on focus group discussions with midwifery students, we refined a

47 rts, 40 face-to-face interviews, and 5 focus group discussions with multiethnic and multilingual wome

48 litative data was obtained through six focus-group discussions with the women's groups, three with wo