ライフサイエンスコーパス: opt-out

1 vant default policy in effect ("opt-in" vs. "opt-out").

2 r could avoid choosing by exiting the trial (opting out).

3 initially only generics, with the ability to opt out.

4 gree of certainty underlying the decision to opt out.

5 they were given a prospective opportunity to opt out.

6 udy and provide a prospective opportunity to opt out.

7 -use law, while the other three counties had opted out.

8 o donate their organs in opt-in (58.63%) and opt-out (59.23%) countries.

9 s did not differ between opt-in (65.97%) and opt-out (66.37%) countries.

10 illing to donate their organs was greater in opt-out (85.26%) than opt-in (80.72%) countries.

11 an email with the active choice to opt in or opt out (active choice), or the active choice email plus

12 ir organs in a representative sample from 19 opt-out and 10 opt-in consent countries from across Euro

13 en, despite the apparent association between opting out and higher donor rates.

14 countries--is not based on a requirement for opting out, and, in the UK, deceased organ donation has

15 We show that this opt-out behavior is driven largely by individuals' ident

16 ted number of centers have reported rates of opting out between 0.2% and 22%; the reasons for declini

17 se in each choice set between 2 meals and an opt-out choice, with different combinations of attribute

18 A major review of opting out concluded that it is not appropriate for the

19 urportedly obtained under opt-in rather than opt-out conditions, and nonagreement as a greater abroga

20 Opt-out consent countries should increase people's aware

21 tand the factors that moderate the effect of opt-out consent legislation on organ donation.

22 ountries are considering whether introducing opt-out consent would increase the availability of donor

23 's wealth to charity upon one's death) or an opt-out country (where it fell between letting others ge

24 n, there are one or several possibilities to opt out from the game by adopting loner strategies.

25 Policies to remove parents' ability to opt-out from school immunization requirements on the bas

26 we describe early experience with integrated opt-out HCV antibody (Ab) screening of medically stable

27 Universal opt-out HCV screening in prisons is highly cost-effectiv

28 transmission network, reinfection rate, and opt-out HCV screening rate are lacking.

29 V case-finding (achieved through introducing opt-out HCV testing in UK pilot prisons) and increasing

30 Risk-based and universal opt-out hepatitis C screening in prisons, followed by tr

31 ntion (CDC) recommends routine (nontargeted) opt-out HIV screening in health care settings, including

32 Nontargeted opt-out HIV screening was independently associated with

33 ients in all health care settings be offered opt-out HIV screening without separate written consent a

34 ound, rationale, and evidence for supporting opt-out HIV testing as routine care for cancer patients

35 pt-out HIV testing have been addressed, such opt-out HIV testing continues to be conducted primarily

36 Although many barriers to routine opt-out HIV testing have been addressed, such opt-out HI

37 needed in addition to provider-initiated and opt-out HIV testing in adolescents, Sheri Weiser and col

38 epartments, less emphasis has been placed on opt-out HIV testing in other clinical settings.

39 For a variety of reasons, routine opt-out HIV testing is still not widely used in the Unit

40 , evidence is discussed for the potential of opt-out HIV testing to improve clinical outcomes by faci

41 tandard of care included health information, opt-out HIV testing, infant feeding counselling, referra

42 settings, calling for standard nontargeted "opt-out" HIV screening.

43 pted out more often on difficult trials, and opting out improved their proportion of successful trial

44 nors and the potential impact of a change to opting-out legislation remains unproven, despite the app

45 s consented to participate with an opt-in or opt-out mechanism; patient consent was waived with IRB a

46 In addition, the authors collected data on opt-out mechanisms available to drivers, costs to resear

47 The authors report the utility of an opt-out method without prior physician notification for

48 Using opt-out methods without prior physician notification, a

49 Bees opted out more often on difficult trials, and opting out

50 The experiences of individuals who opt out of donation may reveal avenues for enhancing don

51 ther research on potential living donors who opt out of donation.

52 custom-tailoring that will allow students to opt out of learning material on the basis of pretest sco

53 noisy display and were sometimes allowed to opt out of the direction choice if their confidence was

54 fter viewing the stimulus, the monkeys could opt out of the direction decision for a small but certai

55 e reasons why potential living kidney donors opt out of the donor evaluation process for nonmedical r

56 to continue toward potential donation or to opt out of the registry.

57 unique HCV-unaware baby boomers, 289 (12.7%) opted out of HCV screening.

58 Eight percent opted out of the study.

59 The greatest predictor of opting out of donation was high ambivalence.

60 dge, attitudes, and behavior with respect to opting out of NBS or DBS for their child.

61 The most consistent factor associated with opting out of the registry across all race/ethnic groups

62 information packet, four programs offered an opt-out option, and none of the programs required writte

63 ount for those with new HIV diagnoses in the opt-out phase (including those diagnostically tested) an

64 The prevalence of new HIV diagnoses in the opt-out phase (including those diagnostically tested) an

65 7%) who did not decline HIV screening in the opt-out phase had new HIV diagnoses, and 5 of 231 patien

66 %) who were diagnostically tested during the opt-out phase had new HIV diagnoses.

67 In the opt-out phase, of 28,043 eligible ED patients, 6933 pati

68 ther diagnostic testing was performed in the opt-out phase.

69 n southwestern Harare implemented optimised, opt-out PITC for all attendees aged 6-15 years.

70 onation policy, and in Austria, which has an opt-out policy.

71 ased relative, support the transition to an "opt-out" policy, or donate a kidney while alive.

72 sed relative, or support a transition to an "opt-out" policy.

73 countries with opt-in (explicit consent) and opt-out (presumed consent) defaults.

74 joined the collaborative and implemented an opt-out protocol for nurses and respiratory therapists t

75 d 24% favored a presumed consent law with an opting out provision.

76 Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening and physician-directed diagn

77 Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the ED, vs diagnostic tes

78 were randomly assigned (1:1) to offer either opt-out rapid HIV testing to newly registering adults or

79 Promotion of opt-out rapid testing in general practice led to increas

80 onsibility when that decision was made under opt-out rather than under opt-in conditions.

81 in part because the requirement to opt-in or opt-out results in large differences in the meaning that

82 Implementing risk-based and opt-out screening could diagnose 41,900 to 122,700 new H

83 Although opt-out testing has been piloted in emergency department

84 d HCV testing in UK prisons (such as through opt-out testing) is borderline cost-effective compared t

85 "Opt-out" testing policies appear to increase uptake rate

86 rgans for transplant purposes was greater in opt-out than opt-in countries and whether such effects w

87 Patients were excluded if they opted out this service after the initial assessment, suf

88 Bees could also transfer the concept of opting out to a novel task.