May 2000; c) they were 01.jpg 01.jpg industrialized countries; and d) they compared outcomes in groups of persons exposed to the intervention with outcomes in groups of persons 01.jpg exposed or less exposed to the intervention (whether the comparison was concurrent or before-after). For each intervention reviewed, the team.

based on their perception of the importance and the extent to which the interventions were practiced 01.jpg the 01.jpg States. Time 01.jpg resource constraints precluded review of some interventions (e.g., 01.jpg risk factor screening and 01.jpg Interventions reviewed were either single-component (i.e., using only one activity 01.jpg achieve desired outcomes) or multicomponent (i.e., using more 01.jpg one related activity). Interventions were grouped together on the basis of their similarity. Some studies provided evidence for more than one intervention. In 01.jpg cases, the studies were reviewed for each applicable intervention. The classifications or nomenclature used in this report were chosen to ensure comparability 01.jpg the review process, and these classifications 01.jpg differ from those used in the original studies. To 01.jpg 01.jpg in the reviews of effectiveness, studies had to meet these criteria: a) they were limited to primary investigations of interventions selected for evaluation; b) they 01.jpg published.

of existing disparities are critical in selecting and 01.jpg interventions to assist populations at high risk, such.