Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The SPF assesses a wider range of protective factors than other scales. The SPF is the only measure that has been shown to assess social and cognitive protective factors. [2] The SPF includes four sub-scales that indicate the strengths and weaknesses that contribute to overall resilience.
Environmental epidemiology is a branch of epidemiology concerned with determining how environmental exposures impact human health. [1] This field seeks to understand how various external risk factors may predispose to or protect against disease, illness, injury, developmental abnormalities, or death.
Protective factors are conditions or attributes (skills, strengths, resources, supports or coping strategies) in individuals, families, communities or the larger society that help people deal more effectively with stressful events and mitigate or eliminate risk in families and communities.
Protective factors can mitigate or provide a buffer against the effects of major stressors by providing an individual with developmentally adaptive outlets to deal with stress. [10] Examples of protective factors include a positive parent-child attachment relationship, a supportive peer network, and individual social and emotional competence. [10]
Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal. Consistency ( reproducibility ): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
Protection motivation theory proposes that people protect themselves based on two factors: threat appraisal and coping appraisal. Threat appraisal assesses the severity of the situation and examines how serious the situation is, while coping appraisal is how one responds to the situation.
For example, in a study examining the effect of the drug apixaban on the occurrence of thromboembolism, 8.8% of placebo-treated patients experienced the disease, but only 1.7% of patients treated with the drug did, so the relative risk is .19 (1.7/8.8): patients receiving apixaban had 19% the disease risk of patients receiving the placebo. [4]
SAPROF was developed in the Netherlands in 2007 as an instrument for the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Following the structured professional judgment model, the SAPROF was designed as a positive addition to other SPJ risk assessment tools, such as the HCR-20, [1] which at the time was considered the most widely used tool for structured professional judgement.