Search

The author discusses the policy of blood donor criteria for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Canada. Topics discussed include a report from Public Health Agency of Canada on annual incident cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Canada, role of Canadian Blood Services in Canada, and several measures to prevent transmission of HIV in Canada compared to the U.S.

ABBREVIATIONS BECSs blood establishment computer systems CBS Canadian Blood Services EBV estimated blood volume MSM men who have sex with men TRALI transfusion-related acute lung injury Societal awareness of trans people and their needs as both blood donors and transfusion recipients has increased over the last few years. Donors are also asked to select "male" or "female", and this sex/gender designation (which may represent sex and/or gender depending on donor center policies and donor interpretation) is included in the donor's electronic file. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Individual medical inquiries versus standardized criteria Blood center policies and donor criteria are usually detailed in standard work instructions and a donor criteria manual, allowing donor screening personnel to screen donors in a standardized way, consistent with approved eligibility requirements. Almost all participants reported they were able to change the donor's gender in their BECS; 97% only had male/female gender options, while 3% had possible gender selections beyond the male/female binary available. [Extracted from the article]

Background: In 2021, Canada implemented a pilot plasma program allowing some sexually active men who have sex with men (including but not limited to gay and bisexual men; gbMSM) to donate plasma. Changes to plasma donation policy could help address inequities in access to plasma donation and increase Canada's domestically collected plasma supply if more gbMSM donate as a result. We aimed to (1) examine views regarding plasma donation and the pilot program prior to implementation and (2) identify modifiable theory‐informed predictors of gbMSM's intention to donate plasma. Methods: We developed, piloted, and disseminated a questionnaire informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We recruited gbMSM in London (ON) and Calgary (AB) to an anonymous, online cross‐sectional survey. Results: A total of 246 gbMSM completed the survey. On scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), general intention to donate was high (mean = 4.24; SD = 0.94). The pilot program itself was mostly acceptable (mean = 3.71, SD = 1.16), but the intention to donate under the unique requirements of the pilot program was lower than general intention (mean = 3.58; SD = 1.26). Two domains from the theoretical domains framework (TDF) (beliefs about consequences of donating plasma and social influences) were independently associated with general intention to donate. Discussion: The pilot plasma program as an incremental step toward more inclusive policies was mostly viewed as acceptable by the impacted communities. Historical and ongoing exclusions create unique barriers to donation. There are clear opportunities for developing theory‐informed interventions to support gbMSM to donate plasma as policies continue to become more inclusive and more become eligible to donate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Canadian Blood Services introduced new eligibility criteria that allows some sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to donate source plasma, marking a significant change from time-based deferral criteria. We aimed to identify potential barriers and enablers to implementing the new criteria from the perspective of donor center staff.Study Design and Methods: We conducted Theoretical Domains Framework-informed interviews with staff from two source plasma donation centers in Canada.Results: We completed 28 interviews between June 2020 and April 2021. Three themes representing eight domains captured key tensions. Valuing inclusive eligibility criteria: staff support inclusive criteria; many were concerned the new criteria remained discriminatory. Investing in positive donor experiences: staff wished to foster positive donor experiences; however, they worried gbMSM donors would express anger and disappointment regarding the new criteria, staff would experience unease over using stigmatizing criteria and convey nonverbal cues of discomfort, and recurring plasma donors may behave inappropriately. Supporting education, training, and transparency of eligibility criteria: participants believed providing in-person training (i.e., to explain criteria rationale, address discomfort, practice responding to donor questions) and ensuring donors and the public were well-informed of the upcoming changes would improve implementation.Discussion: Participant views emphasize the importance of supporting staff through training and transparent communication to optimize the delivery of world-class equitable care for a new cohort of donors who have previously been excluded from plasma donation. Findings inform which staff supports to consider to improve implementation as policies continue to shift internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]