Yan Vieites, Claudio M Ferreira, Rafael Goldszmidt, Eduardo B Andrade
{"title":"Stigmatizing deferrals disproportionally reduce donor return rates: Evidence from Brazil.","authors":"Yan Vieites, Claudio M Ferreira, Rafael Goldszmidt, Eduardo B Andrade","doi":"10.1111/vox.13607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Prior research has shown that temporary deferrals negatively influence donor return rates, but it remains unknown the extent to which these effects vary across reasons for deferral. We investigate whether deferrals differ in their degree of perceived stigmatization and, if so, how being deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons affects subsequent donation behaviour.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We examined whether reasons for deferral vary on their perceived level of stigmatization through an online survey (n = 400). Furthermore, we used a dataset encompassing 25 years of donation records from the state-run blood collection agency (BCA) from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to investigate how stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons for deferral affected return rates of 82,648 donors over a 60-month follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Being deferred for sex- and drug-related reasons was perceived as much more stigmatizing than other reasons for deferral (odds ratio = 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.33-4.25). Controlling for multiple observables, prospective donors were less likely to return to the BCA when deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.93).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Donors perceive deferrals motivated by sex- and drug-related reasons as particularly stigmatizing, which is negatively associated with donor return rates. BCAs may want to pay special attention when communicating stigmatizing reasons for deferral to prospective donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":23631,"journal":{"name":"Vox Sanguinis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vox Sanguinis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vox.13607","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Prior research has shown that temporary deferrals negatively influence donor return rates, but it remains unknown the extent to which these effects vary across reasons for deferral. We investigate whether deferrals differ in their degree of perceived stigmatization and, if so, how being deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons affects subsequent donation behaviour.
Materials and methods: We examined whether reasons for deferral vary on their perceived level of stigmatization through an online survey (n = 400). Furthermore, we used a dataset encompassing 25 years of donation records from the state-run blood collection agency (BCA) from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to investigate how stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons for deferral affected return rates of 82,648 donors over a 60-month follow-up period.
Results: Being deferred for sex- and drug-related reasons was perceived as much more stigmatizing than other reasons for deferral (odds ratio = 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.33-4.25). Controlling for multiple observables, prospective donors were less likely to return to the BCA when deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.93).
Conclusion: Donors perceive deferrals motivated by sex- and drug-related reasons as particularly stigmatizing, which is negatively associated with donor return rates. BCAs may want to pay special attention when communicating stigmatizing reasons for deferral to prospective donors.
期刊介绍:
Vox Sanguinis reports on important, novel developments in transfusion medicine. Original papers, reviews and international fora are published on all aspects of blood transfusion and tissue transplantation, comprising five main sections:
1) Transfusion - Transmitted Disease and its Prevention:
Identification and epidemiology of infectious agents transmissible by blood;
Bacterial contamination of blood components;
Donor recruitment and selection methods;
Pathogen inactivation.
2) Blood Component Collection and Production:
Blood collection methods and devices (including apheresis);
Plasma fractionation techniques and plasma derivatives;
Preparation of labile blood components;
Inventory management;
Hematopoietic progenitor cell collection and storage;
Collection and storage of tissues;
Quality management and good manufacturing practice;
Automation and information technology.
3) Transfusion Medicine and New Therapies:
Transfusion thresholds and audits;
Haemovigilance;
Clinical trials regarding appropriate haemotherapy;
Non-infectious adverse affects of transfusion;
Therapeutic apheresis;
Support of transplant patients;
Gene therapy and immunotherapy.
4) Immunohaematology and Immunogenetics:
Autoimmunity in haematology;
Alloimmunity of blood;
Pre-transfusion testing;
Immunodiagnostics;
Immunobiology;
Complement in immunohaematology;
Blood typing reagents;
Genetic markers of blood cells and serum proteins: polymorphisms and function;
Genetic markers and disease;
Parentage testing and forensic immunohaematology.
5) Cellular Therapy:
Cell-based therapies;
Stem cell sources;
Stem cell processing and storage;
Stem cell products;
Stem cell plasticity;
Regenerative medicine with cells;
Cellular immunotherapy;
Molecular therapy;
Gene therapy.