Risk‐behavior reporting by blood donors with an automated telephone system

Richard Fielding · Anthony J. Hedley

17 citations0/0 files storedTransfusion

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Blood donation and transfusion practices HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions Survey Methodology and Nonresponse

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Donor risk-behavior assessment is important for blood safety. Few evaluations of automated telephone systems for eliciting risk exposure among voluntary blood donors have been reported. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A modified risk-behavior questionnaire was presented after donation via an automated telephone polling system to 805 of 15,092 Hong Kong Chinese voluntary blood donors. Risk-behavior rates were compared to those of all other donors (14,287) simultaneously completing the questionnaire in a pencil-and-paper format. RESULTS: The telephone group included proportionally more women (46.3% vs. 44.9%), previous donors (93.3% vs. 83.6%), and sexually inactive donors (66.5% vs. 71.2%) with lower educational achievement (60.7% vs. 54.5%). The telephone group demonstrated fewer missing data (mean 1.3%, range 0.4%-3.1% vs. mean 9.8%, range 8.0%-14.2%) and more complete demographic detailing, probably accounting for the demographic differences. The telephone group reported higher prevalence rates of needle or syringe sharing (1.5% vs. 0.3%), homosexual and/or bisexual intercourse (4.1% vs. 1.3%), knowing or suspecting that partner had intercourse with another during past year (12.4% vs. 8.5%), and future intention to use blood donation as a means to test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; 19.1% vs. 13.7%). There was no difference in knowledge of the HIV window period or proportions visiting or using condoms with commercial sex workers between telephone and pencil-and-paper groups. CONCLUSION: This survey with automated telephone screening of potential blood donors revealed increased reporting of risk exposure relative to commonly used paper-and-pencil methods. This raises questions of possible underreporting of risk among blood donors screened by paper questionnaire and perhaps face-to-face interview.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Adolescent Sexual Behavior, Drug Use, and Violence: Increased Reporting with Computer Survey Technology 2000Trends in Incidence and Prevalence of Major Transfusion-Transmissible Viral Infections in US Blood Donors, 1991 to 1996 2001First‐time blood donors: demographic trends 1991Screening potential blood donors at risk for human immunodeficiency virus 2003Behavioral and infectious disease risks in young blood donors: implications for recruitment 2002HIV-related behaviours among voluntary blood donors in Hong Kong 2005Audiovisual touch‐screen computer‐assisted self‐interviewing for donor health histories: results from two years experience with the system 2003Blood‐donor perceptions of health history screening with a computer‐assisted self‐administered interview

Cited by

2013Donors' perspectives on self‐deferral of men having sex with men from blood donation 2014Factors for viral infection in blood donors of South Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo 2017What weighs more—low compliance with self‐deferral or minor medical procedures? Explaining the high rate of hepatitis C virus window‐period donations in Poland

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.