Exact(29)
Forty-two sthates that met pre-determined inclusion criteria were analyzed and summarized in terms of: (a) participants receiving intervention, (b) peers implementing, (c) method of training peers, (d) intervention procedures, and (e) desired outcomes.
From December 2009 through October 2012, 120 participants were recruited and divided into two groups: those receiving (intervention group, 60) and not receiving (control group, 60) the HBCC intervention.
Those who did end up receiving intervention while in college either returned to the same drinking habits or increased the amount and frequency in which they drink.
The impact-evaluation literature regularly employs a probability of receiving intervention [7], [8].
In the intervention group, 6 patients dropped out before receiving intervention and 4 after receiving intervention.
Hence, 75 families could be receiving intervention at any one time.
Similar(31)
Qualitatively, health care was used less in those receiving interventions.
Those receiving interventions were investigated further and compared to the remaining prison population.
Group B did not receive intervention for the first 12 weeks and received WEP for the second 12 weeks.
Subsequently, for each district at a time, two ballots (representing health facilities) were randomly picked without replacement to receive intervention.
Collectively, the 42 studies involved a total of 172 participants who received intervention from a total of 396 trained peers.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com