Search

Background: Providing educational materials to deferred donors has been shown to increase their understanding about their deferral and knowledge about their return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of educational materials in increasing the retention of deferred donors. Study Design and Methods: A three‐arm cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, with the following conditions: (a) Incenter Brochure plus Email; (b) Email Only; (c) Control. The Incenter Brochure plus Email condition also included a guided conversation led by staff at the point of deferral. Donors were followed up for 3 months after their deferral had ended to determine if they had attempted to donate. Results: Compared with the Control condition, donors in the Incenter Brochure plus Email condition had increased odds of return at 3 months after their deferral ended (OR: 1.16; 95% CI 1.00–1.33). Subgroup analysis highlighted that novice (OR: 1.38; 95% CI 1.04–1.83) and established donors (OR: 1.36; 95% CI 1.13–1.64) had increased odds of return if they received the incenter materials. Donors who were deferred to maintain their well‐being (OR: 1.28; 95% CI 1.03–1.60) and donors with a prior deferral history (OR: 1.55; 95% CI 1.15–1.55) had increased odds of return if they received the incenter materials. No significant differences were found between the Email Only and Control conditions. Discussion: This trial demonstrates the benefits of providing onsite educational materials to donors at the point of deferral. This is a simple, effective strategy to increase the return behavior of donors within 3 months of their deferral ending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of a temporary deferral often leads to donor lapse. Contributing factors may be donors not knowing when their deferral ends or not being contacted and asked to return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a reminder message notifying donors that their deferral is coming to an end in increasing donors' postdeferral return rates. We evaluated the optimal time, content, and mode of delivery of the reminder message. Study Design and Methods: Two studies were conducted with deferred donors. Study 1: donors (n = 1676) were randomized to be sent a reminder message at one of three time points (4 weeks before, 1 week before, and 1 week after their deferral ended) or to a no contact control condition. Study 2: donors (n = 1973) were randomized to three message type conditions (emotive email, nonemotive email, nonemotive SMS). Attempted return behavior was extracted (appointments, attendances) at 1 month. Results: In Study 1, being sent the reminder message increased odds of donors attempting to return within 3 months compared with the control group (OR:2.01). Sending the reminder 1 week before the deferral ended was the most effective time point. In Study 2, the nonemotive message increased the odds of attempting to return compared with the emotive message (OR:1.38). No differences were found between email and SMS messages. Discussion Sending a reminder message to donors when their deferral is coming to an end is a simple, effective, and cost‐effective method to retain donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of decreased demand for whole blood and increased demand for plasma‐derived products, donors in Australia are increasingly being asked to convert from whole‐blood to plasmapheresis donations. Plasmapheresis is a different type of donation to whole blood as the process takes longer and can be engaged in more frequently. What is unknown is whether whole‐blood donors view donating plasma as consistent with their donor identity and how they respond to the possibility of donating more frequently. To explore this, we undertook semistructured telephone interviews with 26 whole‐blood donors who had recently made their first plasma donation. Findings indicated that whereas donating plasma was viewed as a bigger ask than donating whole blood, the former was viewed as consistent with their identity as a donor because both behaviours were seen to benefit others and self and were located within the same institutional context. Donating plasma was an opportunity for donors to enhance their self‐concept as an altruistic giver. When contemplating their future donation behaviour, donors considered how their donor identity would fit alongside other salient roles. These findings have implications for how institutions can position their request of existing donors to give a different gift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Temporary deferrals negatively impact on donor retention. However, little is known about why donors are deterred from returning. One unexplored area is the emotions experienced by donors when deferred. This study investigated these emotions from the perspectives of both the front‐line staff involved in applying deferrals and deferred donors themselves, with the aim of identifying which emotions impact on donors' intention to return. Materials and Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted with front‐line staff who apply deferrals (n = 47) to explore perceived reasons for donor non‐return following a deferral. Findings informed a survey administered to donors who had received a temporary deferral 1 day prior (n = 397). The questionnaire included items about donors' emotional reactions to receiving the deferral and intention to re‐donate. Results: Staff reported that donors frequently had negative emotional responses to being deferred–particularly anger, frustration and rejection. Exploratory factor analysis of 31 emotions assessed in the donor survey revealed six factors. Deferred donors' intention to re‐donate was negatively associated with anger‐related emotions and positively associated with calm‐related emotions. The association between emotions and intention was moderated by whether the deferral was applied in‐centre or during the pre‐donation telephone call. Conclusion: Emotional reactions to receiving a deferral impact on donors' intention to re‐donate, particularly among those deferred in‐centre. Blood collection staff may be able to address donors' emotional responses to help diminish the impact of being deferred on donors' intentions to return. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]