By giving scientific information about regulating and supporting services, the questionnaire seems to redefine the role of respondents, as "scientific experts" (a role which they could not reasonably fulfil).
38 It would also have been useful to analyse the role of respondents' sexual partners in the uptake of contraception.
The job role of respondents did not appear to influence the type of long-term support networks reported as available (p = 0.282, two-tailed, generalised Fisher exact test (Fisher-Freeman-Halton)), i.e. audiologists, hearing therapists and clinical managers were equally aware of their local services.
In order to explore the role of respondent characteristics and explanatory factors, bivariate analyses are conducted for both active and attitudinal1 acceptability.
The roles of respondents were varied and included one CEO, five directors, four managers, four allied health clinicians, three registered nurses, two clerical/administrative staff, two physicians and six patients.
The reported roles of respondents within their institutions (multiple roles were allowed) included: academic / researcher (n = 27, 60%), laboratory scientist / microbiologist (n = 15, 33.3%), bioinformatician (n = 13, 28.9%), public health professional/epidemiologist (n = 10, 22.2%), clinician (n = 3, 6.7%) and infection control practitioner (n = 1, 2.2%).
The most common functional roles of respondents were health officers or health directors (39% of LHDs), preparedness coordinators (50% of LHDs, 33% of local EMS agencies, 42% of local EMS agencies within a LHD, and 90% of hospitals), and administrators (44% of local EMS agencies and 92% of local EMS agencies within a LHD).
The roles of respondents were categorised as follows: Clinicians (Doctors and Nurses) = 13 Patients/survivors = 5 Service improvement managers = 18 Informaticians = 7 Others = 5 There was a very high consensus on the usefulness of CDS in general, and MATE in particular, for cancer MDMs.
Attention to the role of individual respondents within the project (e.g. policy maker, health professional, etc).
To see if the results were influenced by the role of the respondents (interested practitioners vs. an exclusive specialization) the members of ECVN and ESVN were compared separately.
With respect to faculty roles, 45percentt of respondents said they were clinician-researchers; smaller proportions were primary researchers (31percentt) or clinician-educators (24percentt).
