Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Med Ethics. 2014 May 22;41(5):391–397. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101987

Table 2.

Comparison of subject characteristics by motivation and by doctor status.

Motivation Doctor Status
Responses Direct personal benefit N = 54 Altruism/dual N = 35 P Valueb Own doctor N = 39 Other N = 49 P Valueb
Age (years; mean (SD)) 59.9 (7.4) 58.9 (7.4) .54 60.6 (6.4) 58.6 (8.0) .21
Female (N (%)) 14 (25.9) 11 (31.4) .63 9 (23.1) 15 (30.6) .48
Married (N (%)) 39 (72.2) 26 (74.3) 1.0 32 (82.1) 32 (65.3) .10
Race (N (%)) .64 .69
 White 53 (98.1) 34 (97.1) 38 (97.4) 48 (98.0)
 Black 0 (0) 1 (2.9) 1 (2.6) 0 (0)
 Asian 1 (1.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2.0)
Education (N (%)) .70 .67
 High school or less 12 (22.3) 10 (28.6) 9 (23.1) 13 (26.5)
 Some college 8 (14.8) 7 (20.0) 8 (20.5) 7 (14.3)
 College degree 25 (46.3) 12 (34.3) 14 (35.9) 22 (44.9)
 Post college 9 (16.7) 6 (17.1) 8 (20.5) 7 (14.3)
Years since PD diagnosis (mean/SD) 12.3 (4.4) 10.5 (4.6) .07 11.7 (5.0) 11.8 (4.3) .92
a

Two subjects were missing doctor status data and were not included in analyses.

b

Two-group t-test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation; PD: Parkinson’s Disease