Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significant gender » significant concern (Expand Search), significant burden (Expand Search)
gender decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significant gender » significant concern (Expand Search), significant burden (Expand Search)
gender decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
-
2581
-
2582
DALYs number, ASDR under the age of 20 in 204 countries and territories in 2021.
Published 2025Subjects: -
2583
-
2584
-
2585
Characterization and difference in various variables with different PA level.
Published 2025Subjects: -
2586
-
2587
-
2588
-
2589
-
2590
Comparison of the fit of multiple cluster analyses of the cross-lagged panel model.
Published 2025Subjects: -
2591
Preference for the EIA – conjoint results.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2592
Marginal means – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2593
Sample attribute table.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2594
Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2595
Sample scenario description.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2596
AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2597
Methodological flowchart.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2598
Preference for the EIA vs. ETA across scenarios.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
2599
-
2600