Search

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.)

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 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]