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]

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: 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. [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]