Dataset Information

A national survey on public perceptions of miscarriage.

ABSTRACT: To assess attitudes and perceptions of U.S. survey respondents regarding prevalence, causes, and emotional effects of miscarriage.We used a questionnaire consisting of 33 questions administered in January of 2013 to men and women aged 18-69 years across the United States.Participants from 49 states completed the questionnaire: 45% male and 55% female (N=1,084). Fifteen percent reported they or their partner experienced at least one miscarriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents believed that miscarriage occurred in 5% or less of all pregnancies. Commonly believed causes of miscarriage included a stressful event (76%), lifting a heavy object (64%), previous use of an intrauterine device (28%), or oral contraceptives (22%). Of those who had a miscarriage, 37% felt they had lost a child, 47% felt guilty, 41% reported feeling that they had done something wrong, 41% felt alone, and 28% felt ashamed. Nineteen percent fewer people felt they had done something wrong when a cause for the miscarriage was found. Seventy-eight percent of all participants reported wanting to know the cause of their miscarriage, even if no intervention could have prevented it from occurring. Disclosures of miscarriages by public figures assuaged feelings of isolation for 28% of respondents. Level of education and gender had a significant effect on perceptions and understanding of miscarriage.Respondents to our survey erroneously believed that miscarriage is a rare complication of pregnancy, with the majority believing that it occurred in 5% or less of all pregnancies. There were also widespread misconceptions about causes of miscarriage. Those who had experienced a miscarriage frequently felt guilty, isolated, and alone. Identifying a potential cause of the miscarriage may have an effect on patients' psychological and emotional responses.II.

SUBMITTER: Bardos J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4443861 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A national survey on public perceptions of miscarriage.

Bardos Jonah J Hercz Daniel D Friedenthal Jenna J Missmer Stacey A SA Williams Zev Z

Obstetrics and gynecology 20150601 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess attitudes and perceptions of U.S. survey respondents regarding prevalence, causes, and emotional effects of miscarriage.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a questionnaire consisting of 33 questions administered in January of 2013 to men and women aged 18-69 years across the United States.<h4>Results</h4>Participants from 49 states completed the questionnaire: 45% male and 55% female (N=1,084). Fifteen percent reported they or their partner experienced at least one miscarriage. F ...[more]

PMID: 26000502

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEfforts to mitigate the global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have largely relied on broad compliance with public health recommendations yet navigating the high volume of evolving information can be challenging. We assessed self-reported public perceptions related to COVID-19 including, beliefs (e.g., severity, concerns, health), knowledge (e.g., transmission, information sources), and behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) to understand perspectives in Canada and to inform future public health initiatives.MethodsWe administered a national online survey aiming to obtain responses from 2000 adults in Canada. Respondent sampling was stratified by age, sex, and region. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and tested for regional differences using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression.ResultsWe collected 1,996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. One-fifth (20%) of respondents knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, but few had tested positive themselves (0.6%). Negative impacts of pandemic conditions were evidenced in several areas, including concerns about healthcare (e.g. sufficient equipment, 52%), pandemic stress (45%), and worsening social (49%) and mental/emotional (39%) health. Most respondents (88%) felt they had good to excellent knowledge of virus transmission, and predominantly accessed (74%) and trusted (60%) Canadian news television, newspapers/magazines, or non-government news websites for COVID-19 information. We found high compliance with distancing measures (80% reported self-isolating or always physical distancing). We identified associations between region and self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19.DiscussionWe found that information about COVID-19 is largely acquired through domestic news sources, which may explain high self-reported compliance with prevention measures. The results highlight the broader impact of a pandemic on the general public's overall health and wellbeing, outside of personal infection. The study findings should be used to inform public health communications during COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence about the "modern epidemic" of overdiagnosis, and expanding disease definitions that medicalize more people, data are lacking on public views about these issues. Our objective was to measure public perceptions about overdiagnosis and views about financial ties of panels setting disease definitions.MethodsWe conducted a 15 minute Computer Assisted Telephone Interview with a randomly selected community sample of 500 Australians in January 2014. We iteratively developed and piloted a questionnaire, with a convenience sample (n=20), then with participants recruited by a research company (n=20). Questions included whether respondents had been informed about overdiagnosis; opinions on informing people; and views about financial ties among panels writing disease definitions.FindingsOur sample was generally representative, but included a higher proportion of females and seniors, typical of similar surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate was 20% and cooperation rate was 44%. Only 10% (95% CI 8%-13%) of people reported ever being told about overdiagnosis by a doctor. 18% (95% CI 11%-28%) of men who reported having prostate cancer screening, and 10% (95% CI 6%-15%) of women who reported having mammography said they were told about overdiagnosis. 93% (95% CI 90%-95%) agreed along with screening benefits, people should be informed about overdiagnosis. On panels setting disease definitions, 78% (95% CI 74%-82%) felt ties to pharmaceutical companies inappropriate, and 91% (95% CI 82%-100%) believed panels should have a minority or no members with ties. Limitations included questionnaire novelty and complexity.ConclusionsA small minority of Australians surveyed, including those reporting being screened for prostate or breast cancer, reported being informed of overdiagnosis; most believed people should be informed; and a majority felt it inappropriate that doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies write disease definitions. Results suggest strategies to better inform people about overdiagnosis, and review disease definition processes, have significant public sympathy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Addressing Citizen's perspectives on homelessness is crucial for the design of effective and durable policy responses, and available research in Europe is not yet substantive. We aim to explore citizens' opinions about homelessness and to explain the differences in attitudes within the general population of eight European countries: France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. METHODS:A nationally representative telephone survey of European citizens was conducted in 2017. Three domains were investigated: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices about homelessness. Based on a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), a generalized linear model for clustered and weighted samples was used to probe the associations between groups with opposing attitudes. RESULTS:Response rates ranged from 30.4% to 33.5% (N = 5,295). Most respondents (57%) had poor knowledge about homelessness. Respondents who thought the government spent too much on homelessness, people who are homeless should be responsible for housing, people remain homeless by choice, or homelessness keeps capabilities/empowerment intact (regarding meals, family contact, and access to work) clustered together (negative attitudes, 30%). Respondents who were willing to pay taxes, welcomed a shelter, or acknowledged people who are homeless may lack some capabilities (i.e. agreed on discrimination in hiring) made another cluster (positive attitudes, 58%). Respondents living in semi-urban or urban areas (ORs 1.33 and 1.34) and those engaged in practices to support people who are homeless (ORs > 1.4; p<0.005) were more likely to report positive attitudes, whereas those from France and Poland (p<0.001) were less likely to report positive attitudes. CONCLUSION:The majority of European citizens hold positive attitudes towards people who are homeless, however there remain significant differences between and within countries. Although it is clear that there is strong support for increased government action and more effective solutions for Europe's growing homelessness crisis, there also remain public opinion barriers rooted in enduring negative perceptions.

Project description:BackgroundA public that is an informed partner in clinical research is important for ethical, methodological, and operational reasons. There are indications that the public is unaware or misinformed, and not sufficiently engaged in clinical research but studies on the topic are lacking. PARTAKE - Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment is a program aimed at increasing public awareness and partnership in clinical research. The PARTAKE Survey is a component of the program.ObjectiveTo study public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research.MethodsA 40-item questionnaire combining multiple-choice and open-ended questions was administered to 175 English- or Hindi-speaking individuals in 8 public locations representing various socioeconomic strata in New Delhi, India.ResultsInterviewees were 18-84 old (mean: 39.6, SD ± 16.6), 23.6% female, 68.6% employed, 7.3% illiterate, 26.3% had heard of research, 2.9% had participated and 58.9% expressed willingness to participate in clinical research. The following perceptions were reported (% true/% false/% not aware): 'research benefits society' (94.1%/3.5%/2.3%), 'the government protects against unethical clinical research' (56.7%/26.3%/16.9%), 'research hospitals provide better care' (67.2%/8.7%/23.9%), 'confidentiality is adequately protected' (54.1%/12.3%/33.5%), 'participation in research is voluntary' (85.3%/5.8%/8.7%); 'participants treated like 'guinea pigs'' (20.7%/53.2%/26.0%), and 'compensation for participation is adequate' (24.7%/12.9%/62.3%).ConclusionsResults suggest the Indian public is aware of some key features of clinical research (e.g., purpose, value, voluntary nature of participation), and supports clinical research in general but is unaware of other key features (e.g., compensation, confidentiality, protection of human participants) and exhibits some distrust in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. Larger, cross-cultural surveys are required to inform educational programs addressing these issues.

Project description:BackgroundLimited COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare assistants (HCAs) may adversely impact older adults, who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infections. Our study objective was to evaluate the perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in a sample of frontline HCAs, overall and by race and ethnicity.MethodsAn online survey was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 through national e-mail listserv and private Facebook page for the National Association of Health Care Assistants. Responses from 155 HCAs, including certified nursing assistants, home health aides, certified medical assistants, and certified medication technicians, were included. A 27-item survey asked questions about experiences and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines, including how confident they were that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and adequately tested in people of color. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations with confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.ResultsWe analyzed data from 155 completed responses. Among respondents, 23.9% were black and 8.4% Latino/a. Most respondents worked in the nursing home setting (53.5%), followed by hospitals (12.9%), assisted living (11.6%), and home care (10.3%). Respondents expressed low levels of confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, with fewer than 40% expressing at least moderate confidence in safety (38.1%), effectiveness (31.0%), or adequate testing in people of color (27.1%). Non-white respondents reported lower levels of confidence in adequate testing of vaccines compared to white respondents. In bivariate and adjusted models, respondents who gave more favorable scores of organizational leadership at their workplace expressed greater confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.ConclusionFrontline HCAs reported low confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. Stronger organizational leadership in the workplace appears to be an important factor in influencing HCA's willingness to be vaccinated. Action is needed to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this important population with employers playing an important role to build vaccine confidence and trust among employees.

Dataset Information

A national survey on public perceptions of miscarriage.

Publications

A national survey on public perceptions of miscarriage.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets