11 research outputs found

    Descriptive statistics for the sample of Baltimore African American churchgoers (n = 153).

    No full text
    <p>Descriptive statistics for the sample of Baltimore African American churchgoers (n = 153).</p

    Regression analyses examining variables associated with food-related psychosocial factors as outcomes among African American churchgoers.

    No full text
    <p>Std. β indicates standardized beta, which was used because of the transformed variables.</p><p>R<sup>2</sup> is the variance in the outcome that is explained by the variables in the model.</p><p>All variables adjusted for in the model are included in the table above.</p>a<p>Square transformed to approximate a normal distribution.</p>b<p>Cube transformed to approximate a normal distribution.</p>c<p>nnual Household Income categorized as 1 = 0–30,0002 = 0–30,000 2 = 30,001–50,000 3 = 50,001–80,0004 = over50,001–80,000 4 =  over 80,000.</p>*<p>p-value<0.0.</p

    Venn Diagrams Illustrating the Challenges of Defining or Categorizing Exposures.

    No full text
    <p><b>a) Numbers of Male Farmers Who Reported Working with Swine, Cattle, and Chickens in 2006.</b> A total of 95 out of 126 male farmers reported working with animals in 2006. This diagram includes 92 of these farmers and excludes three farmers who reported working only with other animals. A total of 54 male farmers reported working with swine, 61 reported working with cattle, and 26 reported working with chickens. The overlap between these categories is illustrated in the Fig Circles are not drawn to scale. <b>b) Numbers of Male Farmers Who Reported Working with Swine, Cattle, Chickens, and Other Animals in 2006.</b> A total of 95 out of 126 male farmers reported working with animals in 2006: 54 reported working with swine, 61 reported working with cattle, 26 reported working with chickens, and 38 reported working with other animals. The overlap between these categories is illustrated in the Fig, which is not drawn to scale. “Other animals” includes horses (n = 20), sheep (n = 17), poultry other than chickens (n = 6), goats (n = 6), and other animals (n = 6), with some farmers reporting working with more than one type of other animal. <b>c) Numbers of Male Farmers Who Reported Ever Working With Swine, Cattle, Chickens, and Other Animals.</b> This diagram includes all 126 male farmers who reported ever working with animals. Of these, 125 reported working with swine, 64 reported working with cattle, 62 reported working with chickens, and 60 reported working with other animals. The overlap between these categories is illustrated in the Fig, which is not drawn to scale. “Other animals” includes horses (n = 32), sheep (n = 38), poultry other than chickens (n = 12), goats (n = 6), and other animals (n = 11), with some farmers reporting working with more than one type of other animal.</p

    Schematic Depiction of Hypothesized Causal Pathway Between Occupational Exposure to Poultry, Swine, or Cattle and Development of Autoimmune Peripheral Neuropathy.

    No full text
    <p>Farmers and others who work with animals may be occupationally exposed to the avian commensal bacterium <i>Campylobacter jejuni</i>, which may result in infection and immune response. Molecular mimicry, or similarity in structure, between lipo-oligosaccharides (LOS) of <i>C</i>. <i>jejuni</i> bacteria and epitopes of human gangliosides may lead to the proliferation of anti-ganglioside autoantibodies and subsequent symptoms of autoimmune peripheral neuropathy.</p
    corecore