All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Gender differences in family communication about organ donation
Unformatted Document Text:  19 lack of support for the decision, and 3 (.4%) mentioned that they hadn’t wanted to discuss death. Ten people (1.2%) reported both a personal or family story and moral/altruistic reasons as being discussed. Twenty-two (2.6%) of the participants gave responses which did not fit into any of the categories; these were coded as “other.” Item 14 asked for a description, in as much detail as the respondent could recall, of the response of the family member during this conversation. Three hundred and twenty people (37.4%) did not respond to this item, and 64 (7.5%) wrote that they had not discussed this topic. Of those who did report a reaction, 232 (27.1%) indicated that the family member agreed with the decision to donate, 92 (10.7%) noted that the family member would respect his or her wishes either way, 16 (1.9%) reported that the family member agreed with not donating, 14 (1.6%) that the family member doesn’t agree with donating, nine (1.1%) that the family member doesn’t agree with donating but will respect the respondent’s wishes, six (.7%) that the family member doesn’t agree with not donating but will respect the respondent’s wishes. Only four people (.5%) simply noted that the family member doesn’t agree with not donating. Sixteen (1.9%) indicated that there was no consensus amongst family members, and 15 (1.8%) that the family member was still deciding. Forty (4.7%) gave ambiguous responses, while 28 (3.3%) were coded into an “other” category. Hypothesis and Research Question The variables reported above were then examined for gender differences. A series of t-tests was conducted on all of the data except the responses to the two open- ended questions. The items which were originally coded as 1=yes, 2=no, and 3= not sure were recoded to a rough ordinal scale of 1=yes, 2=not sure, 3=no. These results indicated

Authors: Thompson, Teresa., Robinson, James. and Kenny, Wade.
first   previous   Page 19 of 48   next   last



background image
19
lack of support for the decision, and 3 (.4%) mentioned that they hadn’t wanted to discuss
death. Ten people (1.2%) reported both a personal or family story and moral/altruistic
reasons as being discussed. Twenty-two (2.6%) of the participants gave responses which
did not fit into any of the categories; these were coded as “other.”
Item 14 asked for a description, in as much detail as the respondent could recall,
of the response of the family member during this conversation. Three hundred and
twenty people (37.4%) did not respond to this item, and 64 (7.5%) wrote that they had
not discussed this topic. Of those who did report a reaction, 232 (27.1%) indicated that
the family member agreed with the decision to donate, 92 (10.7%) noted that the family
member would respect his or her wishes either way, 16 (1.9%) reported that the family
member agreed with not donating, 14 (1.6%) that the family member doesn’t agree with
donating, nine (1.1%) that the family member doesn’t agree with donating but will
respect the respondent’s wishes, six (.7%) that the family member doesn’t agree with not
donating but will respect the respondent’s wishes. Only four people (.5%) simply noted
that the family member doesn’t agree with not donating. Sixteen (1.9%) indicated that
there was no consensus amongst family members, and 15 (1.8%) that the family member
was still deciding. Forty (4.7%) gave ambiguous responses, while 28 (3.3%) were coded
into an “other” category.
Hypothesis and Research Question
The variables reported above were then examined for gender differences. A
series of t-tests was conducted on all of the data except the responses to the two open-
ended questions. The items which were originally coded as 1=yes, 2=no, and 3= not sure
were recoded to a rough ordinal scale of 1=yes, 2=not sure, 3=no. These results indicated


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 48   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.