Lfare interests' research scenarios. We regarded all participant traits (summarized in Table 1) as prospective

Lfare interests” research scenarios. We regarded all participant traits (summarized in Table 1) as prospective predictors of interest. As a way to identify the nature with the relationships linear or order Disperse Blue 148 nonlinear amongst predictors and our outcome variable, we initially fit all possible predictors that have been continuous or ordinal as categorical dummies. If we identified a strongDe Vries et al. Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:Web page 6 ofTable 1 Socio-demographics of participants by dichotomized willingness to donate using blanket consent (baseline)a and total sampleAgree 1083 (68 ) Age (years), imply (SD) Female Race White BlackAfrican American Otherc Hispanic Education Higher School Higher college Some college Bachelor’s Degree Household income 50,000 50,00099,999 one hundred,000 Attend religious service As soon as a month When a month Never ever Religion Catholic Non-Catholic Christian Non-Christian Religions Unaffiliated Don’t knowRefused Evangelical Political view Liberal Moderate Conservative Area Northeast South West Midwest Employment status Working Searching for worklaid off Retired Not operating, disabled Not functioning, other 643 (70.6 ) 83 (53.9 ) 196 (71.8 ) 66 (58.1 ) 95 (67.three ) 268 (29.four ) 71 (46.1 ) 77 (28.two ) 48 (41.9 ) 46 (32.7 ) 911 (57.2 ) 154 (9.7 ) 273 (17.two ) 114 (7.2 ) 141 (8.9 ) 185 (64.two ) 391 (66.1 ) 250 (67.3 ) 256 (75.three ) 103 (35.eight ) 201 (33.9 ) 121 (32.7 ) 84 (24.7 ) 288 (18.1 ) 592 (37.2 ) 372 (23.four ) 340 (21.four ) .001 327 (74.9 ) 394 (65.eight ) 354 (64.8 ) 109 (25.1 ) 205 (34.two ) 193 (35.2 ) 437 (27.6 ) 599 (37.9 ) 546 (34.five ) .02 246 (71.eight ) 485 (67.8 ) 61 (75.five ) 255 (71.4 ) 33 (36.two ) 260 (66.0 ) 97 (28.2 ) 230 (32.2 ) 20 (24.six ) 102 (28.6 ) 57 (63.eight ) 134 (34.0 ) 343 (21.7 ) 715 (44.9 ) 81 (five.1 ) 357 (22.six ) 90 (five.7 PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310042 ) 395 (41.7 ) .04 .004 420 (65.7 ) 374 (73.1 ) 286 (66.two ) 219 (34.three ) 138 (26.9 ) 146 (33.eight ) 639 (40.4 ) 511 (32.three ) 432 (27.3 ) .dDisagree 510 (32 ) 46.5 (15.1) 261 (31.four )Total 1593 48.1 (16.1) 830 (52.1 )p-valueb .02 .64 .48.eight (16.five) 569 (68.6 )888 (70.9 ) 92 (48.9 ) 103 (67.five ) 135 (58.8 )364 (29.1 ) 96 (51.1 ) 50 (32.5 ) 95 (41.2 )1252 (78.six ) 188 (11.eight ) 153 (9.6 ) 230 (14.5 ) .001 .104 (56.2 ) 304 (64.five ) 305 (68.0 ) 370 (75.eight )81 (43.eight ) 167 (35.five ) 144 (32.0 ) 118 (24.two )185 (11.6 ) 472 (29.7 ) 448 (28.three ) 487 (30.five ) .408 (62.1 ) 349 (69.4 ) 326 (75.three )249 (37.9 ) 154 (30.six ) 107 (24.7 )656 (41.two ) 503 (31.six ) 433 (27.two ) .De Vries et al. Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:Web page 7 ofTable 1 Socio-demographics of participants by dichotomized willingness to donate using blanket consent (baseline)a and total sample (Continued)Ownership of housing Owned Rented Occupied wo money rent Household has web Privacy , mean (SD) RAQf, imply (SD) Abortion view , imply (SD)g e.008 779 (70.two ) 276 (64.7 ) 28 (49.7 ) 881 (70.six ) two.six (1.2) 46.0 (six.9) two.6 (1.0) 331 (29.8 ) 151 (35.4 ) 28 (50.3 ) 368 (29.4 ) three.6 (1.two) 38.1 (7.8) two.four (1.0) 1109 (69.7 ) 428 (26.9 ) 56 (three.five ) 1248 (78.four ) two.9 (1.three) 43.5 (eight.1) 2.4 (1.0) .001 .001 .001 .N = 1,593; Cell values are weighted counts ( ) or weighted indicates (SD); Other variables collected, but usually are not incorporated inside the table aren’t related with participant position on blanket consent: marital status (p = 0.21), head of household (p = 0.47), household size (p = 0.37), metropolitan region (p = 0.93), housing form (p = 0.48), no matter whether household members in.