Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: Depression is one of the most common forms of mental illness, affecting more than 350 million people worldwide. It is ranked by the World Health Organization as the leading cause of disability globally. Treatment usually involves either medication, some form of  psychotherapy or a combination of both. Yet many patients fail to get better and suffer recurring bouts of illness. MBCT was developed to help such people by teaching them skills to recognize and respond constructively to thoughts and feelings associated with relapse, aiming to prevent a downward spiral into depression. In the first large study to compare MBCT and anti-depressants, researchers found little difference in outcomes. In terms of cost, mindfulness training — often viewed as more costly because it requires more time with a trained therapist — was not significantly more pricey, particularly when given in group sessions, the study found. Richard Byng, a professor at Britain’s Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, said that, while current standard treatment for chronic depression is to keep taking anti-depressants, many people don’t want to take them for long periods and others want to avoid side-effects. In this study, 424 adults with recurrent major depression who were on maintenance anti-depressant drugs were randomly assigned either to come off their anti-depressants slowly and receive MBCT or to stay on their medication. While 212 patients continued taking their anti-depressants, the other 212 attended eight group mindfulness therapy sessions and were given daily home practice as well as an option to have four follow-up sessions over a 12-month period. Study results published in The Lancet medical journal showed that after two years, relapse rates were similar in both groups — at 44 percent in the therapy group versus 47 percent in the anti-depressant drug group. “Whilst this study doesn’t show that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy works any better than maintenance anti-depressant medication in reducing the rate of relapse ... these results suggest a new choice for the millions of people with recurrent depression on repeat prescriptions,” said Willem Kuyken of Oxford University, who worked with Byng on the research. Claim: Mindfulness therapy as good as medication for chronic depression - study.

A: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) may be just as effective as anti-depressants in helping prevent people with chronic depression from relapsing, scientists said on Tuesday.
****
Q: Paragraph: "As the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race veers toward a conclusion, the state’s next senator needs the support of women voters. Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen underscored that point when she targeted Republican challenger Scott Brown’s record supporting women’s reproductive rights during his tenure as a state senator from Massachusetts. Her aim was to undercut Brown’s assertion that he is a pro-choice politician. An ad with a female narrator released on Oct. 7 said, ""In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The ad, titled ""Force,"" drew a swift response from Brown. He held a press conference the same day the ad was released, calling it a lie and adding that it was ""not only insensitive, it is also deeply offensive."" ""I have always been a pro-choice, independent Republican and have a strong record of supporting women’s health care,"" Brown said in Derry, N.H., with his wife Gail by his side. Brown demanded that Shaheen pull the ad, and the next day he launched his own ad calling Shaheen’s commercial a ""smear campaign."" More than ever in this hotly contested Senate race, this seemed like a job for PolitiFact. For support, the ad, and Shaheen’s campaign, pointed to Massachusetts Senate Bill 979, ""An Act Relative to a Woman’s Right to Know,"" filed in 2005. While the bill co-sponsored by Brown and Republican Michael R. Knapik eventually failed, it would have given any woman seeking an abortion information and mandated 24 hours to consider the consequences of that decision. (Exceptions would only be given in the case of a medical emergency.) ""The purpose of the Woman's Right to Know Act is to ensure that every woman considering an abortion receives complete information on the procedure, the risks, the status of her unborn child, and her alternatives, and sufficient reflection time, thereby reducing the possibility of serious, lasting, or life threatening consequences of a medical, emotional and psychological nature,"" the bill states. Similar laws have been proposed and enacted in other states following a 1992 Supreme Court decision allowing the state of Pennsylvania under its ""Abortion Control Act"" to require a woman seeking an abortion to give her informed consent prior to the procedure, receive a host of information about abortion and adoption, and wait 24 hours before having an abortion. The introduction to the Massachusetts bill cites that Supreme Court decision, saying the state ""has an important interest in ensuring that women seeking abortions are provided a fully informed choice and a sufficient period of time to reflect on the information provided, ‘to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.’ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 882 (1992)."" So how about those photographs of fetuses that women would be ""forced"" to look at? Like similar laws proposed and passed elsewhere, the proposed Massachusetts law would have required doctors or their representatives to provide women with lots of information at least 24 hours before an abortion was scheduled, including the names of adoption agencies and contact information for public and private agencies that offer financial and medical support to women throughout a pregnancy and after childbirth. It also required women to receive descriptions of the ""anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including color photographs."" If photos were unavailable ""realistic drawings"" were considered acceptable. The bill made clear that photos of fetuses must be provided to women seeking abortions, but didn’t stop there. It also called for descriptions of the different methods of abortion and ""the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications commonly associated with each method; a description of the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications of pregnancy and delivery; a description of the support obligations of the father of a child born alive."" Before performing an abortion, the doctor or a representative would have to ask the woman if she had ""seen"" the information and ""provide the woman with an opportunity to contact abortion alternative agencies at this time should she so desire."" In addition, a woman’s signature was required before the abortion was performed to give her consent and ""indicate that she has been offered the information described in this section."" Brown says the bill was intended to give adoption a chance and ""did not force women to do anything. I would never force women to do anything."" He’s got a point. Nowhere in the bill is the word ""force"" used. Still, the language of the bill certainly ensures women would be given the information, asks them if they had ""seen it,"" and provided at least 24 hours to review it before having an abortion. Our ruling Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification." Claim: In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses.

A: "Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification."
****
Q: Paragraph: While the story only touches on the costs of flu shots in passing, saying that they’re relatively cheap, we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt on this category. At least at two points in the story, the issue of costs are raised. We would have liked it even better had the story mentioned the actual range of possible costs for the flu vaccine. A quick web search shows the prices ranging from $10 to $30, based on information from the CDC. And free shots are regularly available at public health centers as well. The story does a good job of explaining what the actual benefits of the influenza vaccine really are. Just as a recent HealthNewsReview.org blog post did, the story goes way beyond the typical media version touting claims of X-percent effectiveness and explains what that means in terms of individual people escaping flu symptoms. This accuracy of interpretation does carry with it, however, one risk:  For a public so used to hearing that vaccines are, say, 60 percent effective, actually finding out that they’d only prevent one person from getting symptoms for every 33 people vaccinated may not sound good enough for the lay person. The story does mention that the risks of negative reactions to getting a flu shot usually center on inflammation at the site of the injection, a comparatively minor side effect. It emphasizes that given such a minimal risk, there are very few harms for getting this protection, minimal though it may be in some years. The story gives readers the results of numerous meta-studies that compile partial answers on the vaccine’s effectiveness. It also rightly points out the limitations of those studies, and the research they’re based on, in that ethics forbids the kind of control versus placebo trials that could show cause and effect. Nevertheless, the story is clear in pointing out the limitations of the data it presents, giving readers enough information to make their own decisions. The annual influenza outbreaks offer the possibility for disease-mongering but we feel that’s not the case with this story. The author of this story compiles ample evidence from reliable and respected independent sources concerning influenza. It does not, however, offer any information concerning conflicts of interest, but with this type of story, we’re hard pressed to see how there would be a conflict. The story does mention the meager alternatives to influenza vaccination — that is, proper hand washing hygiene and the isolation of flu patients from those free of the disease. The story offers answers to basic questions about the value of getting an annual flu shot. Those questions are obviously based on the fact that flu vaccines are usually readily available for those who want them. While some years present a possible shortage of vaccine, for most years, vaccination is determined by personal choice, rather than availability. The story appropriately explains that this vaccine has been around for decades. The story is taking a second look at the vaccine’s effectiveness, which as it explains varies from year to year and may not be as high as most people think. The story shows no indications that it was based on a news release. Claim: How well do flu shots work? Here’s what the science says.

A:
This story asks a simple, straightforward question that annually affects much of the population — do flu vaccines work, and how well? The story looks at the evidence offered from a host of studies, giving a fair appraisal of what the data does and does not tell us. [Editor’s note: for another perspective on this issue, see last week’s blog post by Alan Cassels: This flu season, let’s immunize ourselves from the annual infection of exaggerating relative risk reductions.] Outbreaks of influenza come as regularly as the leaves changing color in the fall. And like the autumn colors, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine can change year to year. This story both explains why there is such variability and answers the questions that most people would, or should, have about getting an annual flu shot.
****