Search

Background and Objectives: Two‐Spirit, trans, nonbinary and other gender‐diverse (2STGD) donors face challenges in donation. While many blood operators aim to address these challenges, to date, no empirical study with these donors has been conducted to guide their efforts. This paper reports 2STGD donors' views on a two‐step approach asking donors their gender and sex assigned at birth (SAAB), and expanding gender options in donor registration. Materials and Methods: A qualitative community‐based study was conducted with 2STGD donors (n = 85) in Canada. Semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews were conducted from July to October 2022, audio‐recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using a thematic analytic framework. Results: Participants were divided on their views of a two‐step approach asking gender and SAAB. Themes underlying views in favour of this approach included the following: demonstrating validation and visibility, and treating 2STGD donors and cisgender donors alike. Themes underlying views not in favour or uncertain included potential for harm, compromising physical safety, and invalidation. All participants were in favour of expanding gender options if blood operators must know donors' gender. Conclusion: Results indicate that a two‐step approach for all donors is not recommended unless the blood operator must know both a donor's gender and SAAB to ensure donor and/or recipient safety. Gender options should be expanded beyond binary options. Ongoing research and evidence synthesis are needed to determine how best to apply donor safety measures to nonbinary donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]