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., (© 2022 AABB.)

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., (© 2020 AABB.)

Background and Objectives: Blood Collection Agencies in several countries have implemented strategies to increase the number of plasmapheresis collections. Despite this, a sizable minority of plasma donors lapse from donation each year, with little research conducted on this topic. An understanding of the plasma donation experience from the perspective of lapsed donors, insights into why they stopped donating and their views on returning to donate may provide opportunities to intervene to increase the retention and reactivation of plasma donors., Materials and Methods: A qualitative approach was used in this study, with 17 lapsed plasma donors (no plasma donation for at least 13 months) interviewed. A purposive recruitment strategy was used to obtain a sample with diversity in gender (47% men), age (M = 36·2 years, SD = 13·6) and donation experience (M = 9·2 years, SD = 9·6). Semi-structured, narrative interviews were conducted, with participants describing their plasma donation careers chronologically from first donation to most recent., Results: The majority of participants described at least some aspect of the plasma donation procedure as unpleasant. However, adverse experiences were only attributed to lapsing in a minority of cases, with other participants reporting significant life events, perceived ineligibility and concerns about the safety of the procedure as the reason why they lapsed., Conclusion: It is common for lapsed plasma donors to intend to donate again in the future. Recommendations are given for strategies to address barriers to returning, noting the potential role of tailored education and support., (© 2020 International Society of Blood Transfusion.)

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., (© 2020 AABB.)

Background: The aim of this study was to understand Australian donors' and nondonors' orientations toward 13 noncash incentives for blood and plasma donation and the associations between orientations and intention to donate (nondonors) and subsequent donation (donors)., Study Design and Methods: A survey of 1028 donors and 1201 nondonors was conducted online and by telephone. Donors were randomly selected from the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood donor panel; nondonors were selected from randomly generated fixed line and mobile telephone numbers across Australia. Incentives were chosen to reflect a wide array of possible noncash incentives that might be introduced by blood donation organizations (BDOs). Differences between donors and nondonors, as well as other subgroups, were investigated., Results: Orientations toward most types of incentives were positive or neutral. No significant differences were observed between incentive orientations for whole blood versus plasma donations. Many subgroup differences were small but statistically significant. There were mostly small, positive, significant associations between nondonors' intention to donate and orientations toward noncash incentives; there were mostly no significant associations between donors' orientations and subsequent donation behaviors., Conclusion: The findings from this study suggest that BDOs that wish to trial noncash incentives in voluntary nonremunerative systems can be confident that neither donors nor potential donors will react negatively. They also indicate that BDOs have some flexibility in deciding which incentives to trial., (© 2020 AABB.)

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]