sj-docx-1-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 – Supplemental material for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review by Bronwen Merner, Casey M Haining, Lindy Willmott, Julian Savulescu and Louise A Keogh in Women’s Health</p

sj-docx-2-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 – Supplemental material for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-whe-10.1177_17455057241233124 for Health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review by Bronwen Merner, Casey M Haining, Lindy Willmott, Julian Savulescu and Louise A Keogh in Women’s Health</p

An example question for the discrete choice experiment evaluating price sensitivity and preference for driverless car algorithms.

An example question for the discrete choice experiment evaluating price sensitivity and preference for driverless car algorithms.</p

The overall likelihood of purchasing a driverless car and the likelihood of purchasing a driverless car if a mandatory ethical setting were used and particular algorithms were the only option available.

The overall likelihood of purchasing a driverless car and the likelihood of purchasing a driverless car if a mandatory ethical setting were used and particular algorithms were the only option available.</p

Allocation of consumers’ preferences for three different algorithms.

Respondents who were “unlikely” or “neither likely/unlikely” to purchase any model are indicated outside the Venn diagram (the figures in parentheses refer to the actual number of participants).</p

Fig 2 -

Participant preference among UK and Japanese participants for driverless car algorithms when asked: a. which algorithm should be programmed (if all cars programmed identically) b. which they would personally prefer to purchase if able to choose c. Their purchase preference if they imagined having young family who would often be passengers d. Their purchase preference if they imagined having young family who would often be pedestrians.</p

Average preference strength of ‘Save the Pedestrians’ and ‘Save the Occupants’ over ‘Save the Most’.

(A positive price changes means that participants preferred ‘Save the Most’, and would require a price discount to choose the alternative).</p

Studies investigating views of the public about ethical response to collision scenarios.

Studies investigating views of the public about ethical response to collision scenarios.</p

It consists of all the supporting files for this manuscript.

(DOCX)</p