An Investigation into the Public's Attitude Toward Opting out of Brain Death.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurocritical Care Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-02196-8
Nicholas Ludka, Deidre Hurse, Abram Brummett
{"title":"An Investigation into the Public's Attitude Toward Opting out of Brain Death.","authors":"Nicholas Ludka, Deidre Hurse, Abram Brummett","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02196-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There have been growing sentiments that the Uniform Determination of Death Act needs to be revised. One suggestion is to include a conscience clause, that is, allowing patients to \"opt-out\" of brain death determination. Understanding public attitudes toward a conscience clause may help inform policymakers and future proposed revisions. Therefore, we sought to investigate informed public attitudes toward continued medical support after the determination of brain death.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide online survey was distributed by a third-party provider. The survey had three components: (1) a 2-min educational video that explains five basic facts of brain death, (2) a validated five-item questionnaire to measure understanding of brain death, and (3) a six-item questionnaire to measure informed public attitudes toward a family's request to continue medical support for a patient with brain death. Attitudes were measured on a seven-point Likert scale. A multiple linear regression model was developed to identify predictors of attitudes toward opting out of brain death. Analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test was used to compare attitudes across categorical demographic variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We collected 1386 responses from participants across 49 states. The average five-item knowledge score was 88%. A total of 41.9% of all participants agreed that the hospital should be required to continue treatment for an individual with brain death if their family rejects brain death. A total of 24.4% and 27.3% of participants would request further treatment for themselves and a family member after a determination of brain death, respectively. Multiple linear regression identified attitudes for oneself and for a family member, age greater than 65 years, understanding that brain death is legal death, and male sex as predictors of attitudes toward requiring continued treatment (F(6, 1380) = 142.74, adjust R<sup>2</sup> = 0.38, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nearly half of the participants would require hospitals to continue treatment for families who reject brain death as death. Future discussions on revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act to adopt a conscience clause should consider informed public attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02196-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There have been growing sentiments that the Uniform Determination of Death Act needs to be revised. One suggestion is to include a conscience clause, that is, allowing patients to "opt-out" of brain death determination. Understanding public attitudes toward a conscience clause may help inform policymakers and future proposed revisions. Therefore, we sought to investigate informed public attitudes toward continued medical support after the determination of brain death.

Methods: A nationwide online survey was distributed by a third-party provider. The survey had three components: (1) a 2-min educational video that explains five basic facts of brain death, (2) a validated five-item questionnaire to measure understanding of brain death, and (3) a six-item questionnaire to measure informed public attitudes toward a family's request to continue medical support for a patient with brain death. Attitudes were measured on a seven-point Likert scale. A multiple linear regression model was developed to identify predictors of attitudes toward opting out of brain death. Analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test was used to compare attitudes across categorical demographic variables.

Results: We collected 1386 responses from participants across 49 states. The average five-item knowledge score was 88%. A total of 41.9% of all participants agreed that the hospital should be required to continue treatment for an individual with brain death if their family rejects brain death. A total of 24.4% and 27.3% of participants would request further treatment for themselves and a family member after a determination of brain death, respectively. Multiple linear regression identified attitudes for oneself and for a family member, age greater than 65 years, understanding that brain death is legal death, and male sex as predictors of attitudes toward requiring continued treatment (F(6, 1380) = 142.74, adjust R2 = 0.38, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Nearly half of the participants would require hospitals to continue treatment for families who reject brain death as death. Future discussions on revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act to adopt a conscience clause should consider informed public attitudes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公众对选择退出脑死亡的态度调查。
背景:越来越多的人认为有必要修改《统一死亡判定法》。其中一个建议是加入良心条款,即允许患者“选择退出”脑死亡判定。了解公众对良心条款的态度可能有助于为政策制定者和未来提出的修订提供信息。因此,我们试图调查公众在确定脑死亡后对继续医疗支持的态度。方法:由第三方机构在全国范围内进行在线调查。该调查有三个组成部分:(1)一个2分钟的教育视频,解释脑死亡的五个基本事实;(2)一个经过验证的五项问卷调查,以衡量对脑死亡的理解;(3)一个六项问卷调查,以衡量公众对家庭继续为脑死亡患者提供医疗支持的要求的态度。态度是用7分李克特量表来衡量的。建立了一个多元线性回归模型,以确定对选择退出脑死亡的态度的预测因子。方差分析采用事后Tukey检验来比较不同类别人口统计学变量的态度。结果:我们从49个州的参与者那里收集了1386份回复。五项知识平均得分为88%。共有41.9%的参与者同意,如果脑死亡患者的家人拒绝接受脑死亡治疗,则应要求医院继续对其进行治疗。在确定脑死亡后,共有24.4%和27.3%的参与者分别要求为自己和家庭成员进行进一步治疗。多元线性回归发现,对于自己和年龄大于65岁的家庭成员,理解脑死亡是合法死亡的态度和男性性别是要求继续治疗的态度的预测因子(F(6,1380) = 142.74,调整R2 = 0.38, p)结论:近一半的参与者将要求医院继续治疗拒绝脑死亡的家庭死亡。今后关于修改《统一死亡判定法》以采用良心条款的讨论应考虑到公众的知情态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
期刊最新文献
Proceedings of the Sixth Regional Neurocritical Care Meeting in the Middle East and Africa in Conjunction with the Kuwait 12th Critical Care Conference. Ketamine Versus Midazolam as the First-Line Continuous Infusion for Status Epilepticus in Children with Cardiac Disease. Low-Cost Strategies for the Development of Neurocritical Care in Resource-Limited Settings. Predisposing Factors of Progression from Refractory Status Epilepticus to Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus in ICU-Admitted Patients: Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study in a Resource-Limited Setting. Description of STRIVE-ON Study Protocol: Safety and Tolerability of GTX-104 (Nimodipine Injection for IV Infusion) Compared with Oral Nimodipine in Patients Hospitalized for Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH): A Prospective, Randomized, Phase III Trial (STRIVE-ON).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1