ライフサイエンスコーパス: deprived area

1 n advantaged areas; and 10.22, 7.73-13.53 in deprived areas).

2 ssistant if they live in a socioeconomically deprived area.

3 urvival was associated with living in a more deprived area.

4 with adjacent body parts remapping into the deprived area.

5 f hospital admissions which are worsening in deprived areas.

6 test differences in those living in the most deprived areas.

7 .79; 0.91) than patients living in the least deprived areas.

8 for patients registered at practices in more deprived areas.

9 and individuals living in socioeconomically deprived areas.

10 discounting than do children from the least deprived areas.

11 r odds of hospitalization than those in less deprived areas.

12 ss educated, and more likely to live in more deprived areas.

13 ected for children and adolescents from more deprived areas.

14 rs less than their counterparts in the least deprived areas.

15 n-years than men of a low income residing in deprived areas.

16 but mortality was higher among patients from deprived areas.

17 d to be least evident in those from the most deprived areas.

18 tandardised rates between the least and most deprived areas.

19 twice as common in women and more common in deprived areas.

20 s should be adopted in both deprived and non deprived areas.

21 ity of care, especially in socioeconomically deprived areas.

22 rates were less pronounced in more socially deprived areas.

23 Need was greatest for people living in more deprived areas.

24 respond to the incentives than are those in deprived areas.

25 the life chances of young children living in deprived areas.

26 ic children and those from socioeconomically deprived areas.

27 accessible online increased only in the most deprived areas.

28 inorities (1.002 [1.001 to 1.002]), and more deprived areas.

29 0.07) but not among those living in the most deprived areas.

30 rcentile); lived in overcrowded homes and in deprived areas.

31 viduals living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas (0.931 [0.917-0.946] for stage I; 1.106 [

32 d those living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas (-0.19 percentage points [95% CI, -0.32 t

33 and there were more men living in the least deprived areas (130 277 men [23.9%]) than the most depri

34 lness was highest among children in the most deprived areas (28.3%, 27.8-28.8).

35 potential eligibility if they lived in more deprived areas (4th (1.99; [1.49, 2.66]; p < 0.001), 5th

36 ed areas (130 277 men [23.9%]) than the most deprived areas (72 268 men [13.3%]).

37 eatment should be proportionately located in deprived areas according to need.

38 on was less common in those resident in more deprived areas (according to IMD).

39 fluent areas: ADI, 0%-20%) and highest (most deprived areas: ADI, 80%-100%) ADI quintiles.

40 ent, as did those living in the second least deprived areas (adjusted OR 1.64 [1.20-2.25], p=0.002).

41 h or complement the "original" inputs to the deprived area after sensory restoration and can thus be

42 s disproportionately remained living in more deprived areas after diagnosis, highlighting issues of s

43 y 543 case patients (2.0%) drifted into more deprived areas after diagnosis; people with psychotic di

44 present in women from more socioeconomically deprived areas and in nulliparous women.

45 Funding reductions were greater in more deprived areas and these areas had the worst changes in

46 ortion of food advertisements located within deprived areas and those frequented by students.

47 More deprived areas and those receiving greater Teenage Pregn

48 300 people from deprived areas and with chronic illnesses took part in a

49 py following cervical screening is higher in deprived areas and younger patients.

50 ividuals (60-64 years), those living in most deprived areas, and ethnic minorities, uptake remains be

51 Households from more deprived areas, and households with greater alcohol purc

52 48 (1.38 to 1.59)), those living in the most deprived areas (aOR 1.60 (1.54 to 1.66)), women who were

53 on compared with fathers living in the least deprived areas (aPRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.30).

54 accessibility and quality of primary care in deprived areas are indispensable to addressing the persi

55 h suggests that adolescents who live in more deprived areas are more likely to experience poor emotio

56 Ethnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as younger staff and female staff

57 years compared with their peers in the most deprived areas; at age 5 years, scores were 0.31 (95% Cr

58 ea deprivation, with faster declines in more deprived areas, but disparities by IMD quintile were per

59 ates remained among women living in the most deprived areas, but the HPV vaccination programme had a

60 ndividual characteristics of those living in deprived areas, characteristics of the areas themselves

61 Compared with the least deprived areas, children from the most deprived areas we

62 atios (IRRs) for severe outcomes in the most deprived areas compared to the least.

63 5 years earlier in people living in the most deprived areas compared with the most affluent, with soc

64 tionately larger increases in uptake in less deprived areas created wider inequalities in all age gro

65 likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivat

66 in uptake between the least and most income-deprived areas) doubled over the 7 seasons from 8.48 (95

67 People living in deprived areas during childhood had an increased risk of

68 duals living in the most materially resource-deprived areas (female sHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.76; mal

69 deprived areas, those who lived in the least deprived areas (first national IMD quintile) had a great

70 y educated, living in more socioeconomically deprived areas, former smokers, have lost weight in the

71 ex >=2 given 1 point, living in the two most deprived areas given 2 points, having an inherited or co

72 Migrants settling in the least deprived areas had a decreased risk of developing tuberc

73 Children in deprived areas had a higher proportion of risk factors;

74 Patients from the most deprived areas had a seven-fold higher infection rate (1

75 rall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates.

76 ment, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CC

77 Patients from more deprived areas had poorer 3-year HAQ outcome than those

78 n the most affluent areas, those in the most deprived areas had significantly lower physical (-15.89

79 Individuals living in socially deprived areas have reduced access to the transplant wai

80 Survival was better in less deprived areas (hazard ratio (HR) per tertile of househo

81 Patients from less deprived areas (higher quintile of the deprivation index

82 e between the most deprived (IMD4) and least deprived areas (IMD1) (0.22; 95% confidence interval [95

83 rs) from education and community settings in deprived areas in Bogota, Colombia; Buenos Aires, Argent

84 population burden, particularly in the most deprived areas in England and Wales.

85 nce that children aged 4 to 12 from the most deprived areas in England show greater impulsivity in th

86 hildren and their families from 72 similarly deprived areas in England who took part in the Millenniu

87 Representation from patients living in more deprived areas increased from 23% to 42% between 2017 an

88 including pernicious anaemia (most vs least deprived area IRR 1.72 [1.64-1.81]), rheumatoid arthriti

89 .03-1.07), p < 0.001) and those in the least deprived areas (IRR 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.10), p < 0.001).

90 0.60, 0.61], p < 0.001]); and living in less deprived areas (least-deprived-IMD-quintile versus most-

91 re pronounced among persons residing in more deprived areas; limited evidence was found for regional

92 ontrast, there was a high risk of CA-MRSA in deprived areas linked with overcrowding, homelessness, l

93 at home or in a hospice than those from more deprived areas (lower quintile of the deprivation index;

94 er proportion of practices located in highly deprived areas making deprivation a contributing factor.

95 Vulnerable populations in deprived areas may have greater exposure to fast food, g

96 ecially in women from more socioeconomically deprived areas, may help reduce inequalities in adverse

97 Our findings suggest that patients from deprived areas might be especially susceptible to postop

98 ere young age (< 55 years), living in a more deprived area, nonwhite ethnicity, having advanced-stage

99 ar disease than patients living in the least deprived areas (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval

100 (odds ratio 5.1, 95% CI 3.2-8.3), living in deprived areas (odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.6-4.0), develop

101 nment services, particularly within the most deprived areas of England.

102 logy among older adults in socioeconomically deprived areas of Guarulhos, Brazil.

103 ular dental attenders living in economically deprived areas of Teesside.

104 would be useful especially in less affluent deprived areas of the world where SCD is most prevalent.

105 hages/myeloid cells in hypoxic/metabolically deprived areas of tumors.

106 Compulsory admission was greater in more deprived areas (OR 1.22, 1.18-1.27) and in areas with mo

107 women living in the least socioeconomically deprived areas (OR vs most deprived 1.38, 95% CI [1.10-1

108 irth orders >1, were not breastfed, lived in deprived areas, or were diagnosed with eczema.

109 orer 3-year HAQ outcome than those from less deprived areas (P = 0.019, adjusted for baseline HAQ sco

110 3) ethnic backgrounds, or those in the least deprived areas (p = 0.832), between Periods 1 and 2; wit

111 (1.89 [1.76-2.04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0.0001), individuals of Asian ethnicit

112 lar results were observed in CYP in the most deprived areas (Period 1 IRR 0.95 (95% CI 0.89-1.01) ver

113 est for children and adolescents in the most deprived areas (Q1: 11,000 QALYs [8,370 to 14,100] and Q

114 e online was 175.0 (104.0-292.0) in the most deprived areas (Q5) compared to 27.0 (8.5-60.5) in the l

115 the least deprived areas than from the most deprived areas (reductions of 40.6% v 29.6% and 72.8% v

116 oods with those living in moderately or less deprived areas (reference group).

117 ualities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain.

118 ualities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potentia

119 Given that more deprived areas showed greater reductions in funding, our

120 rates decreased more in those from the least deprived areas than from the most deprived areas (reduct

121 o be male and be from less socioeconomically deprived areas than nonengagers.

122 emale, and to live in less socioeconomically deprived areas than nonparticipants.

123 e more likely to be older and living in more deprived areas than the rest of the population.

124 black African, and Pakistani people lived in deprived areas than those of other ethnic groups (36.9-5

125 and non-safety-net hospitals located in more deprived areas that served less complex patients.

126 pared with those patients living in the most deprived areas, those who lived in the least deprived ar

127 ung by diverting blood flow away from oxygen-deprived areas towards regions rich in O2.

128 (13 of 579 [2.2%]) than those from the least deprived areas (two of 580 [0.3%]; p=0.0040).

129 among disadvantaged young people residing in deprived areas versus risks among similarly disadvantage

130 th disorder 11.0%, 95% CI 10.9-11.2% in most deprived area vs 5.9%, 5.8%-6.0% in least deprived).

131 ber of outlets accessible online in the most deprived areas was 10% higher in March, 2022, compared t

132 or patients aged 25-39 years in the 20% most deprived areas was, compared with 20% (64 of 319 appoint

133 By contrast, in the least deprived areas, we estimated a 19% decrease (IRR 0.81 [0

134 least deprived areas, children from the most deprived areas weighed less (standard deviation [SD] sco

135 Moreover, survivors residing in the most deprived area were 2-3 times more likely to consume the

136 Fathers living in the most deprived areas were 18% more likely to have an antidepre

137 Patients living in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive OAC 0.85 (0.7

138 ncident venous leg ulcers living in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive the recommend

139 Older women and those from deprived areas were less likely to respond, but only age

140 Those living in more deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed antidep

141 Furthermore, areas adjacent to these deprived areas were themselves at greater risk of CA-MRS

142 461/1648 who were living in the most deprived areas, were less likely to be offered DMTs, wit

143 h high consumption commonly observed in more deprived areas where obesity prevalence is also highest.

144 h women of an equally low income residing in deprived areas, whereas men of a low income residing in

145 We find that there are fewer PWS in more deprived areas which also observe higher proportions of

146 70]), while children and adolescents in less deprived areas will likely experience much smaller simul

147 Falls were largest for the most deprived areas with the highest initial level of CHD mor

148 gap in CHD rates between the most and least deprived areas would halve with falls in systolic blood