Al Don’t know Religious affiliation Catholic Non-Catholic Christian Non-Christian Religions Unaffiliated Usually do not KnowRefused Politicale Privacyf RAQg1.00 1.15 1.09 0.90 0.1.00 0.98 0.92 1.06 0.59 0.92 0.68 1.N = 1,593 a We define blanket consent as a model in which the donor provides permission for unspecified and unknown utilizes with the specimen in the time of donation. We chose to test a model portraying “blanket consent” with “committee oversight” as a way of focusing around the ethical issue of consenting to future unknown utilizes of biospecimens the central concern within the conversation about informed consent for biobanking b Adjusted for post-stratification weights c AOR (Adjusted Odds Ratio) higher than 1 indicates the participant characteristic is positively associated with willingness to offer blanket consent, and significantly less than 1 indicates the characteristic is negatively related with willingness to offer blanket consent d Range is 1 to four (greater is a lot more education) e Range is 1 to 7 (higher is a lot more conservative) f Range is 1 to 5 (greater is additional worried) g RAQ will be the 11 item Research Attitudes Questionnaire, assessing attitudes toward healthcare study. Range is 116 (a higher score corresponds to additional good attitudes)bioweapons situation. buy TPO agonist 1 African American identity a different variable strongly related with unwillingness to donate at baseline was a significant independent predictor of decreased willingness to donate in two NWI scenarios: xenotransplantation along with the search for a violence gene. It is also instructive to examine how, and exactly where, every scenario influenced willingness to donate. Two NWI scenarios, patents and bioweapons, diminished willingness to donate by more than 10 age points inside the all round sample, but proved to be far more or less “non-partisan” in their impact on willingness to donate. That is, respondent traits that we would anticipate to exert influence here one’s political views and view on abortion were not related with decreased willingness to donate, and religion had a minimal impact. However, the stem cell situation, which did notDe Vries et al. Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:Table three Logistic regression predicting willingness to offer consent beneath PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310491 non-welfare interest scenariosaAbortion N = 1,587 AORb (95 CI) Age (in years) Female Race White BlackAfrican American Other Hispanic Education Household Revenue Abortion view Always legal In most circumstances Inside a handful of situations Always illegal Do not know 1.00 0.76 (0.52, 1.11) 0.25 (0.17, 0.36) 0.09 (0.05, 0.15) 0.26 (0.15, 0.47) 1.00 0.98 (0.65, 1.47) 0.61 (0.41, 0.90) 0.46 (0.29, 0.74) 0.59 (0.33, 1.05) 1.00 1.05 (0.75, 1.49) 1.11 (0.79, 1.57) 0.74 (0.48, 1.13) 1.05 (0.61, 1.82) 1.00 0.84 (0.54, 1.32) 0.84 (0.55, 1.30) 0.60 (0.36, 0.99) 0.38 (0.21, 0.70) 1.00 1.18 (0.84, 1.67) 1.06 (0.75, 1.50) 0.90 (0.59, 1.37) 0.84 (0.47, 1.50) 1.00 1.11 (0.76, 1.63) 0.91 (0.63, 1.32) 0.62 (0.39, 0.96) 0.70 (0.40, 1.21) 1.00 0.64 (0.45, 0.91) 0.68 (0.48, 0.97) 0.51 (0.33, 0.79) 0.85 (0.49, 1.45) 1.00 0.89 (0.57, 1.40) 1.41 (0.81, 2.47) 0.65 (0.40, 1.03) 0.90 (0.77, 1.06) 1.00 (0.96, 1.03) 1.00 0.43 (0.28, 0.67) 0.78 (0.47, 1.30) 0.62 (0.40, 0.97) 0.99 (0.85, 1.16) 1.02 (0.99, 1.06) 1.00 1.17 (0.77, 1.77) 0.78 (0.50, 1.24) 0.51 (0.34, 0.77) 0.96 (0.83, 1.ten) 1.02 (0.99, 1.05) 1.00 0.63 (0.39, 1.02) 1.02 (0.58, 1.79) 0.91 (0.55, 1.49) 0.94 (0.79, 1.11) 1.00 (0.97, 1.04) 1.00 1.01 (0.67, 1.52) 1.00 (0.64, 1.57) 0.69 (0.45, 1.06) 0.91 (0.80, 1.05) 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) 1.00 0.80 (0.
