MN 148 - Google Drive [TOP]

This article presents findings from a scoping review of tools used to measure oral health literacy. Internationally, interest in oral health literacy is driven by oral health disparities, particularly for disadvantaged groups, with conditions such as dental caries and periodontal disease contributing substantially to the global burden of disease. The increasing focus on measuring oral health literacy aligns with reasons for measuring broader health literacy, that is, by assessing oral health literacy, decisions can be made about instigating interventions at policy and practice level to improve individual and population level oral health. There are numerous tools available that measure oral health literacy using a range of indicators.

MN 148 - Google Drive

Download Zip: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgohhs.com%2F2ue1km&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw0ygeWT7hajGu3A-JNzzF29

Early health literacy measurements focused almost exclusively on reading capacity and on links between the reading skills of adults and health outcomes. Contemporary measurements extend well beyond simply the capacity to read. Nutbeam [14, 22] conceptualises health literacy as having three distinct levels: basic/functional (reading and writing skills for everyday life); communicative/interactional (cognitive and literacy skills combined with social skills) and critical (empowerment to handle information and have control over situations). Over the last decade, researchers have extended understandings of health literacy. Nutbeam [14, 22] ,Sorensen et al. [23] with Osborne and colleagues [24] all consider writing, numeracy, speaking, listening, and understanding the healthcare system as key focal areas in any health literacy tools. The inclusion of numeracy as a key component of health literacy has been driven by claims that high percentages of the population lack the quantitative skills to understand dates and timing of medication dosages, information on appointment slips and financial information associated with healthcare [25]. In a number of studies, the ability of people, even those with good levels of reading ability, to understand numerical concepts such as probability and levels of risk has been shown to be poor [26]. It is argued that these concepts are central for promoting individual responsibility for healthcare and self-management [19, 27].

The defendant had a truck which it used for the transportation of men and material in aid of construction. The truck had a cab with a canvas-covered box behind it. The box was about seven feet high, seven feet wide, and twelve feet long. The top of the box was higher than the top of the cab. There was about two feet of clearance between the top of the truck and the pipes upon which the plaintiff was working. Between 8:15 and 8:30 o'clock on the morning of the accident, the truck driver, an employee of the defendant, drove the truck south, under the pipes. There was then no obstruction in the road "except the planks from the scaffold protruding into the road from the east side," to the driver's left as he drove under the pipes. There was a 25-foot space on which to drive. There were poles on each side of the roadway. About ten or fifteen minutes later, the truck driver drove the truck north on the same road. He had two men with him, one in front and one behind. As he approached the pipes, he noticed that an A-ladder had been placed by the scaffold-builders of the Carey Company in about the center of the road. William J. Myers, who was employed by the Carey Company in connection with the erecting of the scaffold, was on the road, under the pipes. The driver testified that he stopped the truck and signaled to Myers to push the A-ladder to the west; that Myers shook his head and motioned the driver to come through; that Myers walked ahead of the truck, then turned and faced it, and, after looking to the right and left of the truck, signaled the driver to come ahead; that the driver then put the truck in low gear and proceeded slowly under the pipes and was not aware of striking anything until the man in the back of the truck told him to stop, turn around, and see what had happened to a man he had knocked off the scaffold. The top of the truck had caught the ends of the planks where they protruded into the roadway, causing the plaintiff to be thrown to the ground and injured.

The plaintiff received workmen's compensation from the insurer of his employer. In 1944 he brought this action in the State District Court against the defendant, attributing his injuries to the negligence of its truck driver. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court on the ground of diversity of citizenship. The defendant denied that its truck driver was negligent, and alleged that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from his own negligence and that of other employees of the Carey Company. The defendant also alleged that, under the Minnesota Workmen's Compensation Act, the plaintiff could not maintain his action.

The District Court ruled that the plaintiff could maintain the action. The court declined to submit to the jury the issue whether the alleged negligence of Myers caused the accident. The court submitted the issue of the truck driver's alleged negligence, but instructed the jury that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was guilty of any negligence.

Taking the most favorable view of the defendant's evidence, the jury could have found that the truck driver did what an ordinarily prudent man in his position would usually have done under the same or similar circumstances. The jury, we think, reasonably could have inferred from the evidence that Myers, as an employee of the Carey Company, was careless in permitting the ends of the planks to project into the roadway, in obstructing the roadway while in use, in not removing the obstruction to permit the truck to use the center of the road, and in guiding the truck past the obstruction. Had there been no Compensation Act, and had the plaintiff sued the defendant and the Carey Company jointly, the jury, under the evidence, could, we think, have returned a verdict against either or both.

In 2003, after outgrowing two other locations, the company leased an office complex from Silicon Graphics, at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway in Mountain View, California.[58] The complex became known as the Googleplex, a play on the word googolplex, the number one followed by a googol zeroes. Three years later, Google bought the property from SGI for $319 million.[59] By that time, the name "Google" had found its way into everyday language, causing the verb "google" to be added to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, denoted as: "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet".[60][61] The first use of the verb on television appeared in an October 2002 episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.[62]

The name "Google" originated from a misspelling of "googol",[204][205] which refers to the number represented by a 1 followed by one-hundred zeros. Page and Brin write in their original paper on PageRank:[32] "We chose our systems name, Google, because it is a common spelling of googol, or 10100 and fits well with our goal of building very large-scale search engines." Having found its way increasingly into everyday language, the verb "google" was added to the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary in 2006, meaning "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet."[206][207] Google's mission statement, from the outset, was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful",[208] and its unofficial slogan is "Don't be evil".[209] In October 2015, a related motto was adopted in the Alphabet corporate code of conduct by the phrase: "Do the right thing".[210] The original motto was retained in the code of conduct of Google, now a subsidiary of Alphabet.

In 2019, a hub for critics of Google dedicated to abstaining from using Google products coalesced in the Reddit online community /r/degoogle.[326] The DeGoogle grassroots campaign continues to grow as privacy activists highlight information about Google products, and the associated incursion on personal privacy rights by the company.

When Chimney organized a blood drive at the station, Bobby refused to donate his blood, as he was terrified of needles. He only complied after some urging from Chimney, Buck, and Hen. Later on he received a call from the hospital asking to speak with him in person. Bobby assumed something was wrong, and later at church, he showed the priest his book in which he documented the names of everyone that he had been able to save on the job. The book had 148 spaces, one for each person he "killed" in the fire. He said the reason for his counting is so that he can end his life once he has saved enough people to balance out the lives he accidentally took in the fire. The priest reminded him that the Church is against suicide, but Bobby felt the need to make penance for his actions, and he was afraid he may now not live long enough to balance the book. 041b061a72