Motivations for donating and attitudes toward screening policies in US blood donors with viral infection

Farnaz Vahidnia · Susan L. Stramer · Debra A. Kessler · Thelma T. Gonçalez · Beth H. Shaz · Germán F. Leparc +4 more

22 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 Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering Organ Donation and Transplantation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Differences in motivating factors that contribute to the decision to donate blood between infected and uninfected donors may help to identify areas for improving donor education. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: As part of a risk factor study, confirmed-positive donors (cases) based on serology-only (human T-lymphotropic virus [HTLV]) or serology and nucleic acid testing (NAT) or NAT-only (human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], hepatitis B virus [HBV], hepatitis C virus [HCV]), and serology-unconfirmed, NAT-negative false-positive donors (controls) were asked about motivations and opinions toward blood donation. "Test seeking" was inferred if a donor answered "yes" to "I wanted to get my test results" and one of the following: "blood center testing is confidential," "free," "more accurate than other test centers," or "tests will identify problems with my blood." Cases were compared to controls using descriptive and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Whether a case or control, the most common donation reason was "to help someone in need" (>90% in each group). After adjusting for demographic characteristics, test seeking was not significantly associated with infection status. Test seeking was more common in first-time, younger males and nonwhite, non-Hispanic donors. Of donors with HIV, 13% considered selection policies to be unfair, compared with 1, 2, 0.5, and 6% of donors with HBV, HCV, and HTLV and controls, respectively (adjusted odds ratio for HIV cases vs. controls, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-6.7). CONCLUSIONS: Most donors give to help those in need, including HIV-positive donors. Our results establish a baseline from which additional studies can be compared focused on alternate ways to reduce noncompliance and improved messaging to ensure that high-risk potential donors understand the reasons for blood donor screening policies.

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 — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2011Donating Blood: A Meta-Analytic Review of Self-Reported Motivators and Deterrents 2007The blood donation experience: self‐reported motives and obstacles for donating blood 2009Infectivity of human immunodeficiency virus‐1, hepatitis C virus, and hepatitis B virus and risk of transmission by transfusion 1997Estimates of Infectious Disease Risk Factors in US Blood Donors 1991Risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission by blood transfusions before the implementation of HIV‐1 antibody screening 1991Evaluation of Screened Blood Donations for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection by Culture and DNA Amplification of Pooled Cells 2005Motivation, recruitment and retention of voluntary non‐remunerated blood donors: a survey‐based questionnaire study 2004First report of human immunodeficiency virus transmission via an RNA‐screened blood donation

Cited by

2022Removing the men who have sex with men blood donation deferral: Informing risk models using Canadian public health surveillance data 2021Evaluating blood donor experiences and barriers/facilitators to blood donation in the United States using YouTube video content 2018Which Infectious Blood Donors Could Be Identified by the Donor History Questionnaire - Comparison of Blood Donors Infected with HIV or HCV with Notified Cases from General Population in Germany

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.