Also, to increase our ability to interview Asian American adults, we made up to three additional calls to phone numbers estimated by Survey Sampling International as likely to be associated with Asian American individuals.

Accent on Languages, Inc. The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt Associates used state-level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics—which used data from the National Health Interview Survey NHIS and the ACS. The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey.

We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of registered voters in our sample to party registration statewide. The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3. This means that 95 times out of , the results will be within 3.

The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: for the 1, registered voters, the sampling error is ±4. For the sampling errors of additional subgroups, please see the table at the end of this section. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population.

Residents of other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately. We also present results for congressional districts currently held by Democrats or Republicans, based on residential zip code and party of the local US House member.

We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and no party preference or decline-to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not large enough for separate analysis.

We also analyze the responses of likely voters—so designated per their responses to survey questions about voter registration, previous election participation, intentions to vote this year, attention to election news, and current interest in politics.

The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to due to rounding. Additional details about our methodology can be found at www. pdf and are available upon request through surveys ppic. October 14—23, 1, California adult residents; 1, California likely voters English, Spanish. Margin of error ±3. Percentages may not add up to due to rounding. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gavin Newsom is handling his job as governor of California?

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job? Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? Thinking about your own personal finances—would you say that you and your family are financially better off, worse off, or just about the same as a year ago?

Next, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote in California? Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or are you registered as a decline-to-state or independent voter? Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party?

Which one of the seven state propositions on the November 8 ballot are you most interested in? Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. It allows in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, and requires that racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting to make certain payments to the state—such as to support state regulatory costs.

The fiscal impact is increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 26? Initiative Constitutional Amendment. It allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands.

It directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, and nonparticipating tribes. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 27? Initiative Statute. It allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 30?

Do you agree or disagree with these statements? Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Joe Biden is handling his job as president? Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Alex Padilla is handling his job as US Senator? Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Dianne Feinstein is handling her job as US Senator?

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way the US Congress is handling its job? Do you think things in the United States are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? How satisfied are you with the way democracy is working in the United States?

Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied? These days, do you feel [rotate] [1] optimistic [or] [2] pessimistic that Americans of different political views can still come together and work out their differences?

What is your opinion with regard to race relations in the United States today? Would you say things are [rotate 1 and 2] [1] better , [2] worse , or about the same than they were a year ago?

When it comes to racial discrimination, which do you think is the bigger problem for the country today—[rotate] [1] People seeing racial discrimination where it really does NOT exist [or] [2] People NOT seeing racial discrimination where it really DOES exist? Next, Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom]. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy.

He is a leading expert on public opinion and survey methodology, and has directed the PPIC Statewide Survey since He is an authority on elections, voter behavior, and political and fiscal reform, and the author of ten books and numerous publications.

Before joining PPIC, he was a professor of urban and regional planning in the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine, where he held the Johnson Chair in Civic Governance. He has conducted surveys for the Los Angeles Times , the San Francisco Chronicle , and the California Business Roundtable.

He holds a PhD in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. Dean Bonner is associate survey director and research fellow at PPIC, where he coauthors the PPIC Statewide Survey—a large-scale public opinion project designed to develop an in-depth profile of the social, economic, and political attitudes at work in California elections and policymaking.

He has expertise in public opinion and survey research, political attitudes and participation, and voting behavior. Before joining PPIC, he taught political science at Tulane University and was a research associate at the University of New Orleans Survey Research Center. He holds a PhD and MA in political science from the University of New Orleans.

Rachel Lawler is a survey analyst at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she works with the statewide survey team. In that role, she led and contributed to a variety of quantitative and qualitative studies for both government and corporate clients. She holds an MA in American politics and foreign policy from the University College Dublin and a BA in political science from Chapman University.

Deja Thomas is a survey analyst at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she works with the statewide survey team. Prior to joining PPIC, she was a research assistant with the social and demographic trends team at the Pew Research Center.

In that role, she contributed to a variety of national quantitative and qualitative survey studies. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. Petroni GR, Wages NA, Paux G, Dubois F. Implementation of adaptive methods in early-phase clinical trials. Sydes MR, Parmar MKB, James ND, Clarke NW, Dearnaley DP, Mason MD, et al. Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial. Spencer K, Colvin K, Braunecker B, Brackman M, Ripley J, Hines P, et al.

J Diabetes Sci Technol. Miller E, Gallo P, He W, Kammerman LA, Koury K, Maca J, et al. Schäfer H, Timmesfeld N, Müller HH. An overview of statistical approaches for adaptive designs and design modifications. Biom J. Wassmer G, Brannath W. Group sequential and confirmatory adaptive designs in clinical trials. Heidelberg: Springer; Ellenberg SS, DeMets DL, Fleming TR.

Bias and trials stopped early for benefit. Analysis following a sequential test. In: Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Emerson SS, Fleming TR. Parameter estimation following group sequential hypothesis testing. Liu A, Hall WJ. Unbiased estimation following a group sequential test. Bowden J, Glimm E. Unbiased estimation of selected treatment means in two-stage trials. Conditionally unbiased and near unbiased estimation of the selected treatment mean for multistage drop-the-losers trials.

Whitehead J. On the bias of maximum likelihood estimation following a sequential test. Jovic G, Whitehead J. An exact method for analysis following a two-stage phase II cancer clinical trial. Carreras M, Brannath W.

Shrinkage estimation in two-stage adaptive designs with midtrial treatment selection. Brueckner M, Titman A, Jaki T. Estimation in multi-arm two-stage trials with treatment selection and time-to-event endpoint.

Bowden J, Wason J. Identifying combined design and analysis procedures in two-stage trials with a binary end point. Choodari-Oskooei B, Parmar MK, Royston P, Bowden J. Impact of lack-of-benefit stopping rules on treatment effect estimates of two-arm multi-stage TAMS trials with time to event outcome. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Gao P, Liu L, Mehta C. Exact inference for adaptive group sequential designs. Estimation after subpopulation selection in adaptive seamless trials.

Interim analyses: the repeated confidence interval approach. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA.

Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Kieser M, Friede T. Simple procedures for blinded sample size adjustment that do not affect the type I error rate.

żebrowska M, Posch M, Magirr D. Maximum type I error rate inflation from sample size reassessment when investigators are blind to treatment labels. Bratton DJ, Parmar MKB, Phillips PPJ, Choodari-Oskooei B. Type I error rates of multi-arm multi-stage clinical trials: strong control and impact of intermediate outcomes. Glimm E, Maurer W, Bretz F. Hierarchical testing of multiple endpoints in group-sequential trials.

Ye Y, Li A, Liu L, Yao B. A group sequential Holm procedure with multiple primary endpoints. Maurer W, Branson M, Posch M. Adaptive designs and confirmatory hypothesis testing In: Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC, Bretz F, editors.

Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics. Posch M, Koenig F, Branson M, Brannath W, Dunger-Baldauf C, Bauer P. Testing and estimation in flexible group sequential designs with adaptive treatment selection. Wason JMS, Stecher L, Mander AP. Correcting for multiple-testing in multi-arm trials: is it necessary and is it done?

Regulatory perspectives on multiplicity in adaptive design clinical trials throughout a drug development program. Guideline on multiplicity issues in clinical trials draft. Multiple endpoints in clinical trials: guidance for industry draft. Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Müller P. Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials. Statistical methods for dose-finding experiments. Chichester: Wiley; Cheung YK. Dose finding by the continual reassessment method. Thall PF, Wathen JK.

Practical Bayesian adaptive randomisation in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. Jansen JO, Pallmann P, MacLennan G, Campbell MK. Bayesian clinical trial designs: another option for trauma trials? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. Kimani PK, Glimm E, Maurer W, Hutton JL, Stallard N. Liu S, Lee JJ. An overview of the design and conduct of the BATTLE trials. Chin Clin Oncol. Cheng Y, Shen Y. Bayesian adaptive designs for clinical trials.

Lewis RJ, Lipsky AM, Berry DA. Bayesian decision-theoretic group sequential clinical trial design based on a quadratic loss function: a frequentist evaluation. Ventz S, Trippa L. Bayesian designs and the control of frequentist characteristics: a practical solution. Emerson SS, Kittelson JM, Gillen DL. Frequentist evaluation of group sequential clinical trial designs. Bayesian evaluation of group sequential clinical trial designs.

Gsponer T, Gerber F, Bornkamp B, Ohlssen D, Vandemeulebroecke M, Schmidli H. A practical guide to Bayesian group sequential designs. Stallard N, Whitehead J, Cleall S. Decision-making in a phase II clinical trial: a new approach combining Bayesian and frequentist concepts. Dong G, Shih WJ, Moore D, Quan H, Marcella S. A Bayesian-frequentist two-stage single-arm phase II clinical trial design. Hartley AM. Adaptive blinded sample size adjustment for comparing two normal means—a mostly Bayesian approach.

Confidentiality and trial integrity issues for adaptive designs. Broglio KR, Stivers DN, Berry DA. Predicting clinical trial results based on announcements of interim analyses. Chow SC, Corey R, Lin M. On the independence of data monitoring committee in adaptive design clinical trials. Friede T, Henderson R. Exploring changes in treatment effects across design stages in adaptive trials.

Gallo P, Chuang-Stein C. What should be the role of homogeneity testing in adaptive trials? Gonnermann A, Framke T, Großhennig A, Koch A. No solution yet for combining two independent studies in the presence of heterogeneity. Parker RA. Testing for qualitative interactions between stages in an adaptive study. Wang SJ, Brannath W, Brückner M, Hung HMJ, Koch A. Unblinded adaptive statistical information design based on clinical endpoint or biomarker.

Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Bauer P, Einfalt J. Application of adaptive designs—a review. Detry MA, Lewis RJ, Broglio KR, Connor JT, Berry SM, Berry DA.

Standards for the design, conduct, and evaluation of adaptive randomized clinical trials. Washington: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Three steps to writing adaptive study protocols in the early phase clinical development of new medicines. BMC Med Res Methodol. Stevely A, Dimairo M, Todd S, Julious SA, Nicholl J, Hind D, et al. An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.

PLoS One. Dimairo M. The utility of adaptive designs in publicly funded confirmatory trials. Nie L, Rubin EH, Mehrotra N, Pinheiro J, Fernandes LL, Roy A, et al. Clin Cancer Res. Adaptive Designs Working Group of the MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research. Cuffe RL, Lawrence D, Stone A, Vandemeulebroecke M.

When is a seamless study desirable? Case studies from different pharmaceutical sponsors. Multi-arm clinical trials with treatment selection: what can be gained and at what price? Coffey CS, Kairalla JA. Adaptive clinical trials: progress and challenges. Drugs R D. Cole M, Stocken D, Yap C. A pragmatic approach to the design and calibration of a Bayesian CRM dose finding trial. Dose transition pathways: the missing link between complex dose-finding designs and simple decision making.

Yap C, Craddock C, Collins G, Khan J, Siddique S, Billingham L. Implementation of adaptive dose-finding designs in two early phase haematological trials: clinical, operational, and methodological challenges.

Fisher AJ, Yonan N, Mascaro J, Marczin N, Tsui S, Simon A, et al. A study of donor ex-vivo lung perfusion in UK lung transplantation DEVELOP-UK. J Heart Lung Transplant. Sydes MR, Parmar MKB, Mason MD, Clarke NW, Amos C, Anderson J, et al. Flexible trial design in practice—stopping arms for lack-of-benefit and adding research arms mid-trial in STAMPEDE: a multi-arm multi-stage randomized controlled trial.

Gaunt P, Mehanna H, Yap C. The design of a multi-arm multi-stage MAMS phase III randomised controlled trial comparing alternative regimens for escalating COMPARE treatment of intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer with reflections on the complications of introducing a new experimental arm. Gerety EL, Lawrence EM, Wason J, Yan H, Hilborne S, Buscombe J, et al. Ann Oncol. Ho TW, Pearlman E, Lewis D, Hämäläinen M, Connor K, Michelson D, et al.

Efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan in pediatric migraineurs: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using a novel adaptive enrichment design. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ. Adaptive enrichment with subpopulation selection at interim: methodologies, applications and design considerations. Contemp Clin Trials. Kaplan R, Maughan T, Crook A, Fisher D, Wilson R, Brown L, et al.

Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design. Waldron-Lynch F, Kareclas P, Irons K, Walker NM, Mander A, Wicker LS, et al. Rationale and study design of the adaptive study of IL-2 dose on regulatory T cells in type 1 diabetes DILT1D : a non-randomised, open label, adaptive dose finding trial.

Biankin AV, Piantadosi S, Hollingsworth SJ. Patient-centric trials for therapeutic development in precision oncology. Antoniou M, Jorgensen AL, Kolamunnage-Dona R. Biomarker-guided adaptive trial designs in phase II and phase III: a methodological review. Warner P, Weir CJ, Hansen CH, Douglas A, Madhra M, Hillier SG, et al. Low-dose dexamethasone as a treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: protocol for response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial DexFEM.

Fardipour P, Littman G, Burns DD, Dragalin V, Padmanabhan SK, Parke T, et al. Planning and executing response-adaptive learn-phase clinical trials: 2. case studies. Grieve AP. Response-adaptive clinical trials: case studies in the medical literature.

Whitehead J, Thygesen H, Jaki T, Davies S, Halford S, Turner H, et al. Khan J, Yap C, Clark R, Fenwick N, Marin D. Brock K, Billingham L, Copland M, Siddique S, Sirovica M, Yap C.

Implementing the EffTox dose-finding design in the Matchpoint trial. Download references. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health or the University of Sheffield. SSV was supported by a research fellowship from Biometrika Trust. JMSW was supported by MRC grant G CJW was supported in this work by NHS Lothian via the Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit.

GMW was supported by Cancer Research UK. Philip Pallmann, Lisa V. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK. Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Medical Statistics Group, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Statistical Innovation Group, Advanced Analytics Centre, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.

Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Adrian P. Mander, Sofía S. Villar, James M. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. PP, AWB, BCO, MD, LVH, JH, APM, LO, MRS, SSV, JMSW, CJW, GMW, CY and TJ conceptualised the paper at the annual workshop of the Adaptive Designs Working Group of the MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research.

PP, MD, LF, JMSW and TJ drafted the manuscript. PP generated the figures. All authors provided comments on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Correspondence to Philip Pallmann.

AWB is an employee of Roche Products Ltd. LVH is an employee of AstraZeneca. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4. Reprints and Permissions. Pallmann, P. et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med 16 , 29 Download citation. Received : 10 July Accepted : 30 January Published : 28 February Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Correspondence Open Access Published: 28 February Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them Philip Pallmann ORCID: orcid. Bedding 2 , Babak Choodari-Oskooei 3 , Munyaradzi Dimairo 4 , Laura Flight 5 , Lisa V.

Hampson 1 , 6 , Jane Holmes 7 , Adrian P. Sydes 3 , Sofía S. Villar 8 , James M. Wason 8 , 9 , Christopher J.

Weir 10 , Graham M. Why, what and when to adapt in clinical trials Traditionally, clinical trials have been run in three steps [ 1 ]: The trial is designed. The trial is conducted as prescribed by the design. Once the data are ready, they are analysed according to a pre-specified analysis plan. Full size image. Table 1 Overview of adaptive designs with examples of trials that employed these methods Full size table.

Case studies: benefits of adaptive designs A trial with blinded sample size re-estimation Combination Assessment of Ranolazine in Stable Angina CARISA was a multi-centre randomised double-blind trial to investigate the effect of ranolazine on the exercising capacity of patients with severe chronic angina [ 30 ].

A multi-arm multi-stage trial Telmisartan and Insulin Resistance in HIV TAILoR was a phase II dose-ranging multi-centre randomised open-label trial investigating the potential of telmisartan to reduce insulin resistance in HIV patients on combination antiretroviral therapy [ 31 ]. An adaptive randomisation trial Giles et al. Practical aspects As illustrated by these examples, ADs can bring about major benefits, such as shortening trial duration or obtaining more precise conclusions, but typically at the price of being more complex than traditional fixed designs.

Obtaining funding Before a study can begin, funding to conduct it must be obtained. Communicating the design to trial stakeholders Once funding has been secured, one of the next challenges is to obtain ethics approval for the study.

Communicating the design to trial participants Being clear about the design of the study is a key requirement when recruiting patients, which in practice will be done by staff of the participating sites.

IDMC and trial steering committee roles Reviewing observed data at each interim analysis requires careful thought to avoid introducing bias into the trial. Running the trial Our final set of practical challenges relates to running the study. Interpretation of trial results In addition to these practical challenges around planning and running a trial, ADs also require some extra care when making sense of trial results.

Statistical issues For a fixed randomised controlled trial RCT analysed using traditional statistics, it is common to present the estimated treatment effect e. Statistical analyses of fixed RCTs will, in most cases, lead to treatment effect estimates, CIs and p values that have desirable and well-understood statistical properties: 1. Table 2 Important statistical quantities for reporting a clinical trial, and how they may be affected by an adaptive design Full size table.

Reporting adaptive designs High-quality reporting of results is a vital part of running any successful trial [ ]. Type and scope of AD A trial report should not only state the type of AD used but also describe its scope adequately. Sample sizes In addition to reporting the overall planned and actually recruited sample sizes as in any RCT, AD trial reports should provide information on the timing of interim analyses e.

Adaptation criteria Transparency with respect to adaptation procedures is crucial [ ]. Some ADs, however, may require simulation work under a number of scenarios to: evaluate the statistical properties of the design such as family-wise type I error rate, sample size and power assess the potential bias that may result from the statistical estimation procedure explore the impact of not implementing adaptations on both statistical properties and operational characteristics.

Statistical methods As ADs may warrant special methods to produce valid inference see Table 2 , it is particularly important to state how treatment effect estimates, CIs and p values were obtained. Reporting the following, if appropriate for the design used, could provide some form of assurance to the scientific research community: important baseline summaries of participants recruited in different stages summaries of site contributions to interim results exploration of heterogeneity of results across stages or sites path of interim results across stages, even if only using naive treatment effects and CIs.

Unplanned modifications Prospective planning of an AD is important for credibility and regulatory considerations [ 41 ]. Interpretability of results As highlighted earlier, adaptations should be motivated by the need to address specific research objectives.

Lessons learned What worked well? Discussion We wrote this paper to encourage the wider use of ADs with pre-planned opportunities to make design changes in clinical trials. References Friedman FL, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Book Google Scholar Shih WJ. Article Google Scholar Berry Consultants. Article Google Scholar Chow SC, Chang M. Google Scholar Morgan CC. Article PubMed Google Scholar Parmar MKB, Barthel FMS, Sydes M, Langley R, Kaplan R, Eisenhauer E, et al.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Zohar S, Chevret S. Article PubMed Google Scholar Sverdlov O, Wong WK. Article Google Scholar Maca J, Bhattacharya S, Dragalin V, Gallo P, Krams M. Article Google Scholar Stallard N, Todd S. Article PubMed Google Scholar Chow SC, Chang M, Pong A. Article PubMed Google Scholar Fleming TR, Sharples K, McCall J, Moore A, Rodgers A, Stewart R.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Bauer P, Koenig F, Brannath W, Posch M. PubMed Google Scholar Posch M, Maurer W, Bretz F. Article PubMed Google Scholar Graf AC, Bauer P. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Graf AC, Bauer P, Glimm E, Koenig F. Article Google Scholar Magirr D, Jaki T, Posch M, Klinglmueller F.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Kimani PK, Todd S, Stallard N. Article Google Scholar Lorch U, Berelowitz K, Ozen C, Naseem A, Akuffo E, Taubel J. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, König F, Wassmer G. Article PubMed Google Scholar Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar Chevret S. Is your overall opinion of [RANDOM ORDER] very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?

Next, how about Planned Parenthood? Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered in the FIRST THREE MONTHS of pregnancy.

Thinking specifically about the FIRST trimester, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered in the LAST THREE MONTHS of pregnancy. Thinking specifically about the THIRD trimester, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal.

Next, suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Allow females of any age to purchase the "Morning After" pill, a form of emergency contraception, without a prescription? What is your impression of how most Americans feel about abortion -- do you think most Americans are pro-choice or pro-life?

Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? A law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done. A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion. A law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a "partial birth abortion," except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother. A law requiring doctors to inform patients about certain possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure.

A law prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services from receiving any federal funds. A law allowing pharmacists and health providers to opt out of providing medicine or surgical procedures that result in abortion. A law requiring women seeking an abortion to be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before the procedure. A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion. A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when necessary to save the life of the mother.

A law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure. Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about -- When the woman's life is endangered?

How about -- When the woman's physical health is endangered? How about -- When the woman's mental health is endangered?

Please check back soon for future events, and sign up to receive invitations to our events and briefings. December 1, Speaker Series on California's Future — Virtual Event.

November 30, Virtual Event. November 18, Annual Water Conference — In-Person and Online. We believe in the power of good information to build a brighter future for California. Help support our mission. Mark Baldassare , Dean Bonner , Rachel Lawler , and Deja Thomas. Supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Miller Foundation and the James Irvine Foundation. California voters have now received their mail ballots, and the November 8 general election has entered its final stage.

Amid rising prices and economic uncertainty—as well as deep partisan divisions over social and political issues—Californians are processing a great deal of information to help them choose state constitutional officers and state legislators and to make policy decisions about state propositions. The midterm election also features a closely divided Congress, with the likelihood that a few races in California may determine which party controls the US House. These are among the key findings of a statewide survey on state and national issues conducted from October 14 to 23 by the Public Policy Institute of California:.

Today, there is a wide partisan divide: seven in ten Democrats are optimistic about the direction of the state, while 91 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents are pessimistic. Californians are much more pessimistic about the direction of the country than they are about the direction of the state. Majorities across all demographic groups and partisan groups, as well as across regions, are pessimistic about the direction of the United States.

A wide partisan divide exists: most Democrats and independents say their financial situation is about the same as a year ago, while solid majorities of Republicans say they are worse off. Regionally, about half in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles say they are about the same, while half in the Central Valley say they are worse off; residents elsewhere are divided between being worse off and the same.

The shares saying they are worse off decline as educational attainment increases. Strong majorities across partisan groups feel negatively, but Republicans and independents are much more likely than Democrats to say the economy is in poor shape. Today, majorities across partisan, demographic, and regional groups say they are following news about the gubernatorial election either very or fairly closely. In the upcoming November 8 election, there will be seven state propositions for voters.

Due to time constraints, our survey only asked about three ballot measures: Propositions 26, 27, and For each, we read the proposition number, ballot, and ballot label. Two of the state ballot measures were also included in the September survey Propositions 27 and 30 , while Proposition 26 was not. This measure would allow in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, requiring that racetracks and casinos offering sports betting make certain payments to the state to support state regulatory costs.

It also allows roulette and dice games at tribal casinos and adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws. Fewer than half of likely voters say the outcome of each of these state propositions is very important to them. Today, 21 percent of likely voters say the outcome of Prop 26 is very important, 31 percent say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important, and 42 percent say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important.

Today, when it comes to the importance of the outcome of Prop 26, one in four or fewer across partisan groups say it is very important to them. About one in three across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important to them. Fewer than half across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important to them. When asked how they would vote if the election for the US House of Representatives were held today, 56 percent of likely voters say they would vote for or lean toward the Democratic candidate, while 39 percent would vote for or lean toward the Republican candidate.

Democratic candidates are preferred by a point margin in Democratic-held districts, while Republican candidates are preferred by a point margin in Republican-held districts. Abortion is another prominent issue in this election. When asked about the importance of abortion rights, 61 percent of likely voters say the issue is very important in determining their vote for Congress and another 20 percent say it is somewhat important; just 17 percent say it is not too or not at all important.

With the controlling party in Congress hanging in the balance, 51 percent of likely voters say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress this year; another 29 percent are somewhat enthusiastic while 19 percent are either not too or not at all enthusiastic. Today, Democrats and Republicans have about equal levels of enthusiasm, while independents are much less likely to be extremely or very enthusiastic. As Californians prepare to vote in the upcoming midterm election, fewer than half of adults and likely voters are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States—and few are very satisfied.

Satisfaction was higher in our February survey when 53 percent of adults and 48 percent of likely voters were satisfied with democracy in America. Today, half of Democrats and about four in ten independents are satisfied, compared to about one in five Republicans. Notably, four in ten Republicans are not at all satisfied. In addition to the lack of satisfaction with the way democracy is working, Californians are divided about whether Americans of different political positions can still come together and work out their differences.

Forty-nine percent are optimistic, while 46 percent are pessimistic. Today, in a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, about four in ten Democrats, Republicans, and independents are optimistic that Americans of different political views will be able to come together. Notably, in , half or more across parties, regions, and demographic groups were optimistic. Today, about eight in ten Democrats—compared to about half of independents and about one in ten Republicans—approve of Governor Newsom.

Across demographic groups, about half or more approve of how Governor Newsom is handling his job. Approval of Congress among adults has been below 40 percent for all of after seeing a brief run above 40 percent for all of Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress.

Fewer than half across regions and demographic groups approve of Congress. Approval in March was at 44 percent for adults and 39 percent for likely voters. Across demographic groups, about half or more approve among women, younger adults, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Views are similar across education and income groups, with just fewer than half approving. Approval in March was at 41 percent for adults and 36 percent for likely voters.

Across regions, approval reaches a majority only in the San Francisco Bay Area. Across demographic groups, approval reaches a majority only among African Americans. This map highlights the five geographic regions for which we present results; these regions account for approximately 90 percent of the state population. Residents of other geographic areas in gray are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately.

The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Coauthors of this report include survey analyst Deja Thomas, who was the project manager for this survey; associate survey director and research fellow Dean Bonner; and survey analyst Rachel Lawler.

The Californians and Their Government survey is supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Findings in this report are based on a survey of 1, California adult residents, including 1, interviewed on cell phones and interviewed on landline telephones. The sample included respondents reached by calling back respondents who had previously completed an interview in PPIC Statewide Surveys in the last six months. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete.

Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights from October 14—23, Cell phone interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of cell phone numbers. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample RBS of cell phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California.

All cell phone numbers with California area codes were eligible for selection. After a cell phone user was reached, the interviewer verified that this person was age 18 or older, a resident of California, and in a safe place to continue the survey e. Cell phone respondents were offered a small reimbursement to help defray the cost of the call. Cell phone interviews were conducted with adults who have cell phone service only and with those who have both cell phone and landline service in the household.

Landline interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample RBS of landline phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California.

All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection. For both cell phones and landlines, telephone numbers were called as many as eight times. When no contact with an individual was made, calls to a number were limited to six.

Also, to increase our ability to interview Asian American adults, we made up to three additional calls to phone numbers estimated by Survey Sampling International as likely to be associated with Asian American individuals. Accent on Languages, Inc.

The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt Associates used state-level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics—which used data from the National Health Interview Survey NHIS and the ACS.

The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey. We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of registered voters in our sample to party registration statewide.

The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3. This means that 95 times out of , the results will be within 3. The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: for the 1, registered voters, the sampling error is ±4. For the sampling errors of additional subgroups, please see the table at the end of this section. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing.

We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. Residents of other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately.

We also present results for congressional districts currently held by Democrats or Republicans, based on residential zip code and party of the local US House member. We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and no party preference or decline-to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not large enough for separate analysis.

We also analyze the responses of likely voters—so designated per their responses to survey questions about voter registration, previous election participation, intentions to vote this year, attention to election news, and current interest in politics. The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to due to rounding.

Additional details about our methodology can be found at www. pdf and are available upon request through surveys ppic.

October 14—23, 1, California adult residents; 1, California likely voters English, Spanish. Margin of error ±3.

Larson President Emeritus The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar DeMets DL, Fleming TR. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Biankin AV, Piantadosi S, Hollingsworth SJ. Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar Spencer K, Colvin K, Braunecker B, Brackman M, Ripley J, Hines P, et al. Leverage can be used and the fees are very low. This relies on having a readily available supply of replacements, something that is becoming increasingly difficult for legacy systems. Table of Contents [Show].

Categories:

• Binary Options
• Forex Brokers
• Forex Bitcoin
• Binary Options online
• Forex