Of the 1006 young people aged 18-37 years old who completed the questionnaire, 13.6% reported a fair, poor, or very poor general health; 16.3%, a fair, poor, or very poor physical health; and 20.3%, a fair, poor, or very poor psychological or emotional health.
With a median follow-up of 15 months, 10% of patients developed grade 3 4 late toxicities and 18.4% of patients experienced a fair-poor cosmetic outcome.
A response of excellent, very good or good was considered 'good' SRH, whereas a response of fair, poor or very poor was considered 'poor' SRH.
A 5-point scale of SRH was collapsed into two categories: a rating of "very good" or "good" health status was identified as "good health" and a rating of "fair", "poor", or "very poor" health status was regarded as "poor health".
For the nasopharyngeal swabs, the WHO recommendations are followed and swab quality is recorded according to a standardised category (good, fair, poor).
In order to avoid small frequencies in the analyses this was modified to a three-step scale (good, fair, poor).
SPHS was collapsed to three categories: excellent and very good were categorised as very good; good remained as a category of its own; fair, poor and very poor were categorised as poor.
They were categorised into an ordinal scale (excellent, good, fair, poor and failure) by most studies.
It was evaluated using a 5-point scale (excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor).
A large majority of the American public thinks universities are doing a fair or poor job.
Nearly two-thirds of people in New York City said the Police Department was doing only a fair or poor job, with the level of dismay particularly high among blacks.
