A Survey on Public Perceptions of Low Fertility: A Social Research Panel Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
It was reported that South Korea showed the greatest decline in the fertility rate among the entire OECD countries over the last 30 years with the total fertility rate (TFR) of 0.84 persons in 2020. Despite the efforts of the Korean government, the TFR has decreased constantly. This study intended to analyze the perception of Koreans toward pregnancy and childbirth regarding the low fertility rate in South Korea for understanding the causes of constantly decreased low fertility.Methods
This study carried out an online survey based on 1,002 men and women aged 19 to 59 years old for six days from October 21 to October 26 in 2021 in cooperation with Gallup Korea. This study analyzed the perception of people toward low fertility, the severity of low fertility, and level of interest in low fertility to inspect awareness of the severity of low fertility in South Korea through a survey.Results
It was found that 62%, 52%, and 72% of entire participants, women, and men agreed on a question "It is better to get married". As for women's age, a positive response for this question was derived from 34.2% (20s), 43.1% (30s), 53.4% (40s), and 71.4% (50s), respectively (P < 0.001). In a question "the necessity of children", a positive response for this question was derived from 34.7% (20s), 58.3% (30s), 75.9% (40s), and 83.5% (50s) of female respondents, respectively (P < 0.001). Positive responses were shown 39.2%, 60.0%, 79.7%, and 81.5% of female participants in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s agreed on the question "My children make me happy in my life", respectively (P < 0.001).Conclusion
This study found that a decrease in the TFR was affected mainly by the negative perception of women in their 20s and 30s toward marriage, childbirth, and the necessity of children. Therefore, further research should be conducted to develop policies that focus on these significant variables to overcome the worsening low fertility problem.
SUBMITTER: Kim HS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9239839 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC3713007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmediate access to patients' complete health records via electronic databases could improve healthcare and facilitate health research. However, the possible benefits of a national electronic health records (EHR) system must be balanced against public concerns about data security and personal privacy. Successful development of EHR requires better understanding of the views of the public and those most affected by EHR: users of the National Health Service. This study aims to explore the correlation between personal healthcare experience (including number of healthcare contacts and number and type of longer term conditions) and views relating to development of EHR for healthcare, health services planning and policy and health research.Methods/designA multi-site cross-sectional self-complete questionnaire designed and piloted for use in waiting rooms was administered to patients from randomly selected outpatients' clinics at a university teaching hospital (431 beds) and general practice surgeries from the four primary care trusts within the catchment area of the hospital. All patients entering the selected outpatients clinics and general practice surgeries were invited to take part in the survey during August-September 2011. Statistical analyses will be conducted using descriptive techniques to present respondents' overall views about electronic health records and logistic regression to explore associations between these views and participants' personal circumstances, experiences, sociodemographics and more specific views about electronic health records.DiscussionThe study design and implementation were successful, resulting in unusually high response rates and overall recruitment (85.5%, 5336 responses). Rates for face-to-face recruitment in previous work are variable, but typically lower (mean 76.7%, SD 20). We discuss details of how we collected the data to provide insight into how we obtained this unusually high response rate.
| S-EPMC3464182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies have attempted to determine the proportion of Canadian hospital pharmacists involved in clinical research, despite a general consensus that research should be an essential component of a pharmacist's professional role.The primary objective was to characterize the involvement in clinical pharmacy research of hospital pharmacists in the 4 health authorities of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (collectively known as the Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services). The secondary objective was to identify perceived barriers to conducting research.Pharmacists employed within Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services were invited to participate in an online cross-sectional survey, for completion in August and September 2015. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. Groups of survey participants were compared to examine differences in measured outcomes.A total of 534 pharmacists were surveyed, with a response rate of 16% (85/534). Overall, 77% (55/71) of the respondents reported having participated in research, and 87% (62/71) expressed interest in conducting future research. Chart reviews (78%, 36/46) and surveys (41%, 19/46) were the most common study designs used in prior research. Participants self-identified their research-related strengths as literature evaluation (46%, 27/59) and hypothesis generation (44%, 26/59). Conversely, 81% (48/59) of respondents self-identified statistical analysis as a weakness. Most respondents stated that personal satisfaction (82%, 49/60) and the opportunity to learn about disease states (78%, 47/60) were the driving factors for conducting research. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting research was lack of time (92%, 55/60). Opportunities to join existing teams (73%, 44/60) and mentorship programs (70%, 42/60) were identified as the most popular arrangements for encouraging future research.Most of the pharmacists who responded to this survey reported having participated in clinical pharmacy research, but a lack of dedicated time appears to be a major hurdle to greater research participation. A targeted program increasing exposure to existing research teams and mentorship opportunities is recommended for promoting future research.
| S-EPMC5931069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?MethodsWith that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.ResultsTwenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.ConclusionsThese results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.
| S-EPMC7731550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly being utilized to better connect patients and researchers. The Patient Engagement Studio (PES) supports PPI in research by working directly with researchers throughout various stages of their projects. Recently, two researchers presented to the PES for assistance with their project, Embryo+™. The purpose of Embryo+™ is to decrease miscarriage rates using RNA sequencing technology that screens for the most viable embryos. To date, no examples of PPI directly in the planning or implementation of bench research concerning in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer have been identified.Main bodyEmbryo+™ researchers met in-person with the PES two times (fall 2019; each meeting had 9 PES members in attendance) for initial feedback and protocol development. After these meetings, PES leadership and Embryo+™ researchers decided that the unique nature of the project merited a PPI evaluation. Subsequent evaluation of engagement efforts occurred by reviewing the PES reports for the Embryo+™ researchers, conducting two recorded web-based discussion meetings with the PES (summer 2020; meeting 1 n = 7; meeting 2 n = 6), and a brief survey (n = 13). The discussion meetings provided an opportunity for the PES members to define engagement themes through consensus via verbal agreement to the studio director's periodic summaries during the discussions. Combining survey results and PES themes allowed for a broad discussion for meaningful engagement. The Embryo+™ researchers established trust with the patients by changing some of their language in response to patient suggestions, allowing for unintended ethical conversations, and implementing the patient developed protocols. Overall, the patient experts thought this project was very meaningful and valuable, quantified by a mean loyalty score 89.43 (s.d. 10.29).ConclusionBench science researchers may need additional PPI training prior to engaging with patient groups. PPI in this project was successful in large part due to this training, where the director emphasized the importance of gaining trust with the patients. The researchers applied what they learned and several examples of how to develop trust with patients are discussed. If trust is established, PPI in an ethically charged, basic science research study can be both valuable and successful.
| S-EPMC8115861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess attitudes and perceptions of U.S. survey respondents regarding prevalence, causes, and emotional effects of miscarriage.MethodsWe used a questionnaire consisting of 33 questions administered in January of 2013 to men and women aged 18-69 years across the United States.ResultsParticipants 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.ConclusionRespondents 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.Level of evidenceII.
| S-EPMC4443861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:See https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/trial-looking-what-people-think-information-they-receive-nhs-bowel-cancer-screening-programme
| 2424656 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundOver the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest.ResultsOne way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources.ConclusionAggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.
| S-EPMC2576262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesGiven widespread interest in applying artificial intelligence (AI) to health data to improve patient care and health system efficiency, there is a need to understand the perspectives of the general public regarding the use of health data in AI research.DesignA qualitative study involving six focus groups with members of the public. Participants discussed their views about AI in general, then were asked to share their thoughts about three realistic health AI research scenarios. Data were analysed using qualitative description thematic analysis.SettingsTwo cities in Ontario, Canada: Sudbury (400 km north of Toronto) and Mississauga (part of the Greater Toronto Area).ParticipantsForty-one purposively sampled members of the public (21M:20F, 25-65 years, median age 40).ResultsParticipants had low levels of prior knowledge of AI and mixed, mostly negative, perceptions of AI in general. Most endorsed using data for health AI research when there is strong potential for public benefit, providing that concerns about privacy, commercial motives and other risks were addressed. Inductive thematic analysis identified AI-specific hopes (eg, potential for faster and more accurate analyses, ability to use more data), fears (eg, loss of human touch, skill depreciation from over-reliance on machines) and conditions (eg, human verification of computer-aided decisions, transparency). There were mixed views about whether data subject consent is required for health AI research, with most participants wanting to know if, how and by whom their data were used. Though it was not an objective of the study, realistic health AI scenarios were found to have an educational effect.ConclusionsNotwithstanding concerns and limited knowledge about AI in general, most members of the general public in six focus groups in Ontario, Canada perceived benefits from health AI and conditionally supported the use of health data for AI research.
| S-EPMC7594363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social scientists and community advocates have expressed concerns that many social and cultural impacts important to citizens are given insufficient weight by decision makers in public policy decision-making. In two large cross-sectional surveys, we examined public perceptions of a range of social, cultural, health, economic, and environmental impacts. Findings suggest that valued impacts are perceived through an initial lens that highlights both tangibility (how difficult it is to understand, observe, and make changes to an impact) and scope (how broadly an impact applies). Valued impacts thought to be less tangible and narrower in scope were perceived to have less support by both decision makers and the public. Nearly every valued impact was perceived to have more support from the public than from decision makers, with the exception of three economic considerations (revenues, profits, and costs). The results also demonstrate that many valued impacts do not fit neatly into the single-category distinctions typically used as part of impact assessments and cost-benefit analyses. We provide recommendations for practitioners and suggest ways that these results can foster improvements to the quality and defensibility of risk and impact assessments.
| S-EPMC8214679 | biostudies-literature