Search

Background: O-negative donors are a critical resource for blood collection agencies, and their recruitment and retention provides an ongoing challenge. Motivational interviewing shows promise as a tool to promote donor retention, although concerns about scalability remain. The current study examined the effect of an automated Web-based interview drawing on motivational interviewing and self-determination theory on O-negative donors' motivation, intention, and behavior.Study Design and Methods: Within 13 days of donating, 2820 O-negative donors completed baseline measures of motivation and intention before being randomly assigned to complete either a motivational interview (MI) or active control interview (ACI). Motivation and intention were assessed at 2 days and at 7 weeks after participation in the MI or ACI, with return behavior tracked for 6 months following trial completion.Results: Changes in donor motivation and intention, rate, and time to return did not vary by participation in the MI or ACI. When compared with O-negative donors who experienced business-as-usual practices, donors completing the MI or ACI returned to donate more, and they returned more quickly. However, subsequent exploratory analyses considering the behavior of those who did not accept the invitation to participate and those who completed only baseline measures showed that the improved return behavior of donors in the MI or ACI conditions was likely not due to any specific properties of the MI or ACI activities.Conclusions: Australian O-negative donors were highly internally motivated and committed to donating. An automated Web-based motivational interview appears to be of limited effectiveness in promoting the return of such donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Receiving a temporary deferral has been shown to negatively affect donor retention. One contributing factor for low donor return may be poor understanding of why the deferral has occurred. The aim of this study was to determine whether new educational materials‐a brochure, guided conversation, and follow‐up email‐increased deferred donors' knowledge about their donation eligibility, satisfaction with the deferral process, intention to return, and odds of rebooking another appointment. Study Design and Methods: A three‐arm cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of the educational materials compared to business as usual deferral procedures: (a) In‐center brochure and follow‐up email; (b) Email only; (c) Control. A survey was administered to a random sample of trial participants (n = 847). Results: Compared with the control condition, donors in the in‐center brochure and email condition were more knowledgeable about the end date of their deferral, and reported higher satisfaction with the deferral information provided, and had fewer questions and/or concerns about the deferral. Similar findings were observed when comparing the email only condition to the in‐center brochure and email condition. No differences were found in intention to return. Donors in the in‐center brochure plus email condition had increased odds (OR:1.385) of rebooking their next appointment compared to the combined email only and control conditions. Conclusions: The application of a deferral is often misunderstood by donors. Providing educational materials to donors can increase their understanding and may lead to increased retention of donors through rebooking of subsequent donations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]