human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Abstract Whiplash‐associated disorders are common and incur considerable expense in social and economic terms . There are no known effective treatments for those people whose pain and disability persist beyond 3 months . We conducted a r and omized , assessor‐blinded , controlled trial at two centres in Australia . All participants received 3 advice sessions . In addition the experimental group participated in 12 exercise sessions over 6 weeks . Primary outcomes were pain intensity , pain bothersomeness and function measured at 6 weeks and 12 months . Exercise and advice was more effective than advice alone at 6 weeks for all primary outcomes but not at 12 months . The effect of exercise on the 0–10 pain intensity scale was −1.1 ( 95%CI −1.8 to −0.3 , p = 0.005 ) at 6 weeks and −0.2 ( 0.6 to −1.0 , p = 0.59 ) at 12 months ; on the bothersomeness scale the effect was −1.0 ( −1.9 to −0.2 , p = 0.003 ) at 6 weeks and 0.3 ( −0.6 to 1.3 , p = 0.48 ) at 12 months . The effect on function was 0.9 ( 0.3 to 1.6 , p = 0.006 ) at 6 weeks and 0.6 ( −0.1 to 1.4 , p = 0.10 ) at 12 months . High levels of baseline pain intensity were associated with greater treatment effects at 6 weeks and high levels of baseline disability were associated with greater treatment effects at 12 months . In the short‐term exercise and advice is slightly more effective than advice alone for people with persisting pain and disability following whiplash . Exercise is more effective for subjects with higher baseline pain and disability Prognosis studies are investigations of future events or the evaluation of associations between risk factors and health outcomes in population s of patients ( 1 ) . The results of such studies improve our underst and ing of the clinical course of a disease and assist clinicians in making informed decisions about how best to manage patients . Prognostic research also informs the design of intervention studies by helping define subgroups of patients who may benefit from a new treatment and by providing necessary information about the natural history of a disorder ( 2 ) . There has recently been a rapid increase in the use of systematic review methods to synthesize the evidence on research questions related to prognosis . It is essential that investigators conducting systematic review s thoroughly appraise the method ologic quality of included studies to be confident that a study 's design , conduct , analysis , and interpretation have adequately reduced the opportunity for bias ( 3 , 4 ) . Caution is warranted , however , because inclusion of method ologically weak studies can threaten the internal validity of a systematic review ( 4 ) . This follows abundant empirical evidence that inadequate attention to biases can cause invalid results and inferences ( 5 - 9 ) . However , there is limited consensus on how to appraise the quality of prognosis studies ( 1 ) . A useful framework to assess bias in such studies follows the basic principles of epidemiologic research ( 10 , 11 ) . We focus on 6 areas of potential bias : study participation , study attrition , prognostic factor measurement , confounding measurement and account , outcome measurement , and analysis . The main objectives of our review of review s are to describe methods used to assess the quality of prognosis studies and to describe how well current practice s assess potential biases . Our secondary objective is to develop recommendations to guide future quality appraisal , both within single studies of prognostic factors and within systematic review s of the evidence . We hope this work facilitates future discussion and research on biases in prognosis studies and systematic review s. Methods Literature Search and Study Selection We identified systematic review s of prognosis studies by search ing MEDLINE ( 1966 to October 2005 ) using the search strategy recommended by McKibbon and colleagues ( 12 ) . This strategy combines broad search terms for systematic review s ( systematic review .mp ; meta- analysis .mp ) and a sensitive search strategy for prognosis studies ( cohort , incidence , mortality , follow-up studies , prognos * , predict * , or course ) . We also search ed the reference lists of included review s and method ologic papers to identify other relevant publications . We restricted our search to English- language publications . One review er conducted the search and selected the studies . Systematic review s , defined as review s of published studies with a comprehensive search and systematic selection , were included if they assessed the method ologic quality of the included studies by using 1 or more explicit criteria . We excluded studies if they were meta-analyses of independent patient data only , if their primary goal was to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention or specific diagnostic or screening tests , or if they included studies that were not done on humans . Data Extraction and Synthesis Individual items included in the quality assessment of the systematic review s were recorded as they were reported in the publication ( that is , the information that would be available to readers and future review ers ) . We review ed journal Web sites and contacted the authors of the systematic review s for additional information when authors made such an offer in their original papers . When review s assessed different study design s by using different sets of quality items , we extracted only those items used to assess cohort studies . We constructed a comprehensive list of distinct items that the review s used to assess the quality of their included studies . The full text of each review was screened . All items used by the review authors to assess the quality of studies were extracted into a computerized spreadsheet by 1 review er . Two experienced review ers , a clinical epidemiologist and an epidemiologist , independently synthesized the quality items extracted from the prognosis review s to determine how well the systematic review s assessed potential biases . We did this in 3 steps : 1 ) identified distinct concepts or domains addressed by the quality items ; 2 ) grouped each extracted quality item into the appropriate domain or domains ; and 3 ) identified the domains necessary to assess potential biases in prognosis studies . We then used this information to assess how well the review s ' quality assessment included items from the domains necessary to assess potential biases . After completing each of the first 3 steps , the review ers met to attempt to reach a consensus . The consensus process involved each review er presenting his or her observations and results , followed by discussion and debate . A third review er was available in cases of persistent disagreement or uncertainty . In the first step , all domains addressed by the quality items were identified . The first review er iteratively and progressively defined the domains as items were extracted from the included review s. The second review er defined domains from a r and om list of all extracted quality items . Limited guidance was provided to the review ers so that their assessment s and definitions of domains would be independent . The review ers agreed on a final set of domains that adequately and completely defined all of the extracted items . In the second step , review ers independently grouped each extracted item into the appropriate domains . Review ers considered each extracted item by asking , What is each particular quality item addressing ? or What are the review 's authors getting at with the particular quality assessment item ? . Items were grouped into the domain or domains that best represented the concepts being addressed . For example , the extracted items at least 80 % of the group originally identified was located for follow-up and follow-up was sufficiently complete or does n't jeopardize validity were each independently classified by both review ers as assessing the domain completeness of follow-up adequate , whereas the extracted item quantification and description of all subjects lost to follow-up was classified as assessing the domain completeness of follow-up described . In the third step , we identified the domains necessary to assess potential biases . Each review er considered the ability of the identified domains to adequately address , at least in part , 1 of the following 6 potential biases : 1 ) study participation , 2 ) study attrition , 3 ) prognostic factor measurement , 4 ) confounding measurement and account , 5 ) outcome measurement , and 6 ) analysis . Domains were considered to adequately address part of the framework if information garnered from that domain would inform the assessment of potential bias . For example , both review ers judged that the identified domain study population represents source population or population of interest assessed potential bias in a prognosis study , whereas the domain research question definition did not , although the latter is an important consideration in assessing the inclusion of studies in a systematic review . Finally , on the basis of our previous ratings , we looked at whether each review included items from the domains necessary to assess the 6 potential biases . We calculated the frequency of systematic review s by assessing each potential bias and the number of review s that adequately assessed bias overall . From this systematic synthesis , we developed recommendations for improving quality appraisal in future systematic review s of prognosis studies . We used Microsoft Access and Excel 2002 ( Microsoft Corp. , Redmond , Washington ) for data management and SAS for Windows , version 9.1 ( SAS Institute , Inc. , Cary , North Carolina ) for descriptive statistics . Role of the Funding Sources The funding sources , the Canadian Institutes of Health Research , the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation , the Ontario Chiropractic Association , and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care , did not have a role in the collection , analysis , or interpretation of the data or in the decision to su bmi t the manuscript for publication . Results We identified 1384 potentially relevant articles . Figure 1 shows a flow chart of studies that were included and excluded . Figure 2 shows the number of review s identified by year of publication . We excluded 131 systematic review s of prognosis studies that did not seem to include any quality assessment of the included studies ; this represented 44 % of prognosis review s. We included 163 review s of prognosis studies in our analysis ( 13 - 175 ) . The most common topics were cancer ( 15 % ) , musculoskeletal disorders and rheumatology ( 13 % ) , cardiovascular ( 10 % ) , neurology ( 10 % ) , and obstetrics ( 10 % ) . Other review s included a wide range of health and health care topics . Sixty-three percent of the review s investigated the association between a specific prognostic factor and a particular outcome ; the remainder investigated multiple prognostic factors or models . The number of primary studies included in each systematic review ranged from 3 to 167 ( median , 18 [ interquartile range , 12 to 31 ] ) . A complete description of the included review s is available from the authors on request . Figure 1 . Flow diagram of inclusion and exclusion criteria of systematic review s. Figure 2 . Number of systematic review s of prognosis studies identified over time . Quality Items One hundred fifty-three review s provided adequate detail to allow extraction of quality items . Eight hundred eighty-two distinct quality items were extracted from the review s. Most review s developed their own set of quality items , with only a few applying criteria from previous review s. Most quality items Abstract Objectives Firstly , to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with “ usual ” physiotherapy for patients with neck pain . Secondly , to evaluate the effect of patients ' preferences on outcome . Design Non-inferiority r and omised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of r and omisation . Setting Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire . Participants 268 patients ( mean age 48 years ) with subacute and chronic neck pain , who were referred by their general practitioner and r and omly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention ( one to three sessions ) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy , at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned . Main outcome measures The Northwick Park neck pain question naire ( NPQ ) , a specific measure of functional disability result ing from neck pain . Also , the short form 36 ( SF-36 ) question naire , a generic , health related , quality of life measure ; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia , a measure of fear and avoidance of movement . Results At 12 months , patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group ( mean difference 1.99 , 95 % confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52 ; P = 0.01 ) . Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention , the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention ( below 1.2 points of NPQ score ) . Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy . Conclusions Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain . Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach . Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further Study Design . A r and omized controlled design superimposed on treatment as usual was used to compare the effects of a cognitive-behavior intervention aim ed at preventing chronicity with two different forms of information . Objective . To develop a coping-oriented preventive intervention applicable in primary care , and to compare its impact with educational information . Summary of Background Data . Preventing long-term disability result ing from spinal pain has proved difficult . The information provided by health care professions and early interventions aim ed at preventing long-term disability may be important , but little scientific evidence exists concerning their use . Methods . A protocol for a six-session cognitive-behavior group intervention was developed on the basis of earlier research . The main focus was to prevent long-term disability by changing patients ’ behaviors and beliefs so they can cope better with their problems . Comparison groups received either a pamphlet shown earlier to have an effect , or a more extensive information package consisting of six installments . All the groups continued to receive treatment as usual in primary care . There were 243 patients with acute or subacute spinal pain who perceived that they were at risk for developing a chronic problem . These patients were r and omized to the cognitive-behavioral intervention or one of the two information groups . Because the aim was to prevent long-term disability , the key outcome variables at the 1-year follow-up assessment were sick absenteeism and health care use . Other variables were pain , function , fear-avoidance beliefs , and cognitions . Results . The comparison groups reported benefits . However , the risk for a long-term sick absence developing was lowered ninefold for the cognitive-behavior intervention group as compared with the risk for the information groups ( relative risk , 9.3 ) . Participants in the cognitive-behavior group also reported a significant decrease in perceived risk . In addition , the cognitive- 
    Output:
    
agent
Overall , as a therapeutic intervention , structured patient education was equal or less effective than other conservative treatments including massage , supervised exercise , and physiotherapy .
However , structured patient education may provide small benefits when combined with physiotherapy .
Either mode of delivery ( ie , oral or written education ) provides similar results in patients with recent WAD .
Results suggest that structured patient education alone can not be expected to yield large benefits in clinical effectiveness compared with other conservative interventions for patients with WAD or NAD .
Moreover , structured patient education may be of benefit during the recovery of patients with WAD when used as an adjunct therapy to physiotherapy or emergency room care .
These benefits are small and short lived
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Abstract Whiplash‐associated disorders are common and incur considerable expense in social and economic terms . There are no known effective treatments for those people whose pain and disability persist beyond 3 months . We conducted a r and omized , assessor‐blinded , controlled trial at two centres in Australia . All participants received 3 advice sessions . In addition the experimental group participated in 12 exercise sessions over 6 weeks . Primary outcomes were pain intensity , pain bothersomeness and function measured at 6 weeks and 12 months . Exercise and advice was more effective than advice alone at 6 weeks for all primary outcomes but not at 12 months . The effect of exercise on the 0–10 pain intensity scale was −1.1 ( 95%CI −1.8 to −0.3 , p = 0.005 ) at 6 weeks and −0.2 ( 0.6 to −1.0 , p = 0.59 ) at 12 months ; on the bothersomeness scale the effect was −1.0 ( −1.9 to −0.2 , p = 0.003 ) at 6 weeks and 0.3 ( −0.6 to 1.3 , p = 0.48 ) at 12 months . The effect on function was 0.9 ( 0.3 to 1.6 , p = 0.006 ) at 6 weeks and 0.6 ( −0.1 to 1.4 , p = 0.10 ) at 12 months . High levels of baseline pain intensity were associated with greater treatment effects at 6 weeks and high levels of baseline disability were associated with greater treatment effects at 12 months . In the short‐term exercise and advice is slightly more effective than advice alone for people with persisting pain and disability following whiplash . Exercise is more effective for subjects with higher baseline pain and disability Prognosis studies are investigations of future events or the evaluation of associations between risk factors and health outcomes in population s of patients ( 1 ) . The results of such studies improve our underst and ing of the clinical course of a disease and assist clinicians in making informed decisions about how best to manage patients . Prognostic research also informs the design of intervention studies by helping define subgroups of patients who may benefit from a new treatment and by providing necessary information about the natural history of a disorder ( 2 ) . There has recently been a rapid increase in the use of systematic review methods to synthesize the evidence on research questions related to prognosis . It is essential that investigators conducting systematic review s thoroughly appraise the method ologic quality of included studies to be confident that a study 's design , conduct , analysis , and interpretation have adequately reduced the opportunity for bias ( 3 , 4 ) . Caution is warranted , however , because inclusion of method ologically weak studies can threaten the internal validity of a systematic review ( 4 ) . This follows abundant empirical evidence that inadequate attention to biases can cause invalid results and inferences ( 5 - 9 ) . However , there is limited consensus on how to appraise the quality of prognosis studies ( 1 ) . A useful framework to assess bias in such studies follows the basic principles of epidemiologic research ( 10 , 11 ) . We focus on 6 areas of potential bias : study participation , study attrition , prognostic factor measurement , confounding measurement and account , outcome measurement , and analysis . The main objectives of our review of review s are to describe methods used to assess the quality of prognosis studies and to describe how well current practice s assess potential biases . Our secondary objective is to develop recommendations to guide future quality appraisal , both within single studies of prognostic factors and within systematic review s of the evidence . We hope this work facilitates future discussion and research on biases in prognosis studies and systematic review s. Methods Literature Search and Study Selection We identified systematic review s of prognosis studies by search ing MEDLINE ( 1966 to October 2005 ) using the search strategy recommended by McKibbon and colleagues ( 12 ) . This strategy combines broad search terms for systematic review s ( systematic review .mp ; meta- analysis .mp ) and a sensitive search strategy for prognosis studies ( cohort , incidence , mortality , follow-up studies , prognos * , predict * , or course ) . We also search ed the reference lists of included review s and method ologic papers to identify other relevant publications . We restricted our search to English- language publications . One review er conducted the search and selected the studies . Systematic review s , defined as review s of published studies with a comprehensive search and systematic selection , were included if they assessed the method ologic quality of the included studies by using 1 or more explicit criteria . We excluded studies if they were meta-analyses of independent patient data only , if their primary goal was to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention or specific diagnostic or screening tests , or if they included studies that were not done on humans . Data Extraction and Synthesis Individual items included in the quality assessment of the systematic review s were recorded as they were reported in the publication ( that is , the information that would be available to readers and future review ers ) . We review ed journal Web sites and contacted the authors of the systematic review s for additional information when authors made such an offer in their original papers . When review s assessed different study design s by using different sets of quality items , we extracted only those items used to assess cohort studies . We constructed a comprehensive list of distinct items that the review s used to assess the quality of their included studies . The full text of each review was screened . All items used by the review authors to assess the quality of studies were extracted into a computerized spreadsheet by 1 review er . Two experienced review ers , a clinical epidemiologist and an epidemiologist , independently synthesized the quality items extracted from the prognosis review s to determine how well the systematic review s assessed potential biases . We did this in 3 steps : 1 ) identified distinct concepts or domains addressed by the quality items ; 2 ) grouped each extracted quality item into the appropriate domain or domains ; and 3 ) identified the domains necessary to assess potential biases in prognosis studies . We then used this information to assess how well the review s ' quality assessment included items from the domains necessary to assess potential biases . After completing each of the first 3 steps , the review ers met to attempt to reach a consensus . The consensus process involved each review er presenting his or her observations and results , followed by discussion and debate . A third review er was available in cases of persistent disagreement or uncertainty . In the first step , all domains addressed by the quality items were identified . The first review er iteratively and progressively defined the domains as items were extracted from the included review s. The second review er defined domains from a r and om list of all extracted quality items . Limited guidance was provided to the review ers so that their assessment s and definitions of domains would be independent . The review ers agreed on a final set of domains that adequately and completely defined all of the extracted items . In the second step , review ers independently grouped each extracted item into the appropriate domains . Review ers considered each extracted item by asking , What is each particular quality item addressing ? or What are the review 's authors getting at with the particular quality assessment item ? . Items were grouped into the domain or domains that best represented the concepts being addressed . For example , the extracted items at least 80 % of the group originally identified was located for follow-up and follow-up was sufficiently complete or does n't jeopardize validity were each independently classified by both review ers as assessing the domain completeness of follow-up adequate , whereas the extracted item quantification and description of all subjects lost to follow-up was classified as assessing the domain completeness of follow-up described . In the third step , we identified the domains necessary to assess potential biases . Each review er considered the ability of the identified domains to adequately address , at least in part , 1 of the following 6 potential biases : 1 ) study participation , 2 ) study attrition , 3 ) prognostic factor measurement , 4 ) confounding measurement and account , 5 ) outcome measurement , and 6 ) analysis . Domains were considered to adequately address part of the framework if information garnered from that domain would inform the assessment of potential bias . For example , both review ers judged that the identified domain study population represents source population or population of interest assessed potential bias in a prognosis study , whereas the domain research question definition did not , although the latter is an important consideration in assessing the inclusion of studies in a systematic review . Finally , on the basis of our previous ratings , we looked at whether each review included items from the domains necessary to assess the 6 potential biases . We calculated the frequency of systematic review s by assessing each potential bias and the number of review s that adequately assessed bias overall . From this systematic synthesis , we developed recommendations for improving quality appraisal in future systematic review s of prognosis studies . We used Microsoft Access and Excel 2002 ( Microsoft Corp. , Redmond , Washington ) for data management and SAS for Windows , version 9.1 ( SAS Institute , Inc. , Cary , North Carolina ) for descriptive statistics . Role of the Funding Sources The funding sources , the Canadian Institutes of Health Research , the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation , the Ontario Chiropractic Association , and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care , did not have a role in the collection , analysis , or interpretation of the data or in the decision to su bmi t the manuscript for publication . Results We identified 1384 potentially relevant articles . Figure 1 shows a flow chart of studies that were included and excluded . Figure 2 shows the number of review s identified by year of publication . We excluded 131 systematic review s of prognosis studies that did not seem to include any quality assessment of the included studies ; this represented 44 % of prognosis review s. We included 163 review s of prognosis studies in our analysis ( 13 - 175 ) . The most common topics were cancer ( 15 % ) , musculoskeletal disorders and rheumatology ( 13 % ) , cardiovascular ( 10 % ) , neurology ( 10 % ) , and obstetrics ( 10 % ) . Other review s included a wide range of health and health care topics . Sixty-three percent of the review s investigated the association between a specific prognostic factor and a particular outcome ; the remainder investigated multiple prognostic factors or models . The number of primary studies included in each systematic review ranged from 3 to 167 ( median , 18 [ interquartile range , 12 to 31 ] ) . A complete description of the included review s is available from the authors on request . Figure 1 . Flow diagram of inclusion and exclusion criteria of systematic review s. Figure 2 . Number of systematic review s of prognosis studies identified over time . Quality Items One hundred fifty-three review s provided adequate detail to allow extraction of quality items . Eight hundred eighty-two distinct quality items were extracted from the review s. Most review s developed their own set of quality items , with only a few applying criteria from previous review s. Most quality items Abstract Objectives Firstly , to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with “ usual ” physiotherapy for patients with neck pain . Secondly , to evaluate the effect of patients ' preferences on outcome . Design Non-inferiority r and omised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of r and omisation . Setting Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire . Participants 268 patients ( mean age 48 years ) with subacute and chronic neck pain , who were referred by their general practitioner and r and omly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention ( one to three sessions ) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy , at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned . Main outcome measures The Northwick Park neck pain question naire ( NPQ ) , a specific measure of functional disability result ing from neck pain . Also , the short form 36 ( SF-36 ) question naire , a generic , health related , quality of life measure ; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia , a measure of fear and avoidance of movement . Results At 12 months , patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group ( mean difference 1.99 , 95 % confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52 ; P = 0.01 ) . Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention , the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention ( below 1.2 points of NPQ score ) . Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy . Conclusions Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain . Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach . Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further Study Design . A r and omized controlled design superimposed on treatment as usual was used to compare the effects of a cognitive-behavior intervention aim ed at preventing chronicity with two different forms of information . Objective . To develop a coping-oriented preventive intervention applicable in primary care , and to compare its impact with educational information . Summary of Background Data . Preventing long-term disability result ing from spinal pain has proved difficult . The information provided by health care professions and early interventions aim ed at preventing long-term disability may be important , but little scientific evidence exists concerning their use . Methods . A protocol for a six-session cognitive-behavior group intervention was developed on the basis of earlier research . The main focus was to prevent long-term disability by changing patients ’ behaviors and beliefs so they can cope better with their problems . Comparison groups received either a pamphlet shown earlier to have an effect , or a more extensive information package consisting of six installments . All the groups continued to receive treatment as usual in primary care . There were 243 patients with acute or subacute spinal pain who perceived that they were at risk for developing a chronic problem . These patients were r and omized to the cognitive-behavioral intervention or one of the two information groups . Because the aim was to prevent long-term disability , the key outcome variables at the 1-year follow-up assessment were sick absenteeism and health care use . Other variables were pain , function , fear-avoidance beliefs , and cognitions . Results . The comparison groups reported benefits . However , the risk for a long-term sick absence developing was lowered ninefold for the cognitive-behavior intervention group as compared with the risk for the information groups ( relative risk , 9.3 ) . Participants in the cognitive-behavior group also reported a significant decrease in perceived risk . In addition , the cognitive- 
    Output:
    