ArticleNeurocritical care2025
An Investigation into the Public's Attitude Toward Opting out of Brain Death.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsWe 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
conclusionsNearly 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.