This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

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 incenter 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.

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.

Background Knowledge translation focuses on the transfer of research findings into policy and practice. To provide insight into the state of knowledge translation in blood donor research, we undertook a rapid review of a key research area in the field with high potential for translation, vasovagal reactions (VVRs). We examined the number and nature of VVR‐related studies to determine the availability of research evidence, and mapped the included articles along the research‐to‐practice trajectory using the Knowledge to Action framework. Study Design and Methods PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for peer‐reviewed journal articles from inception to October 2019 using the terms blood don* AND vasovagal OR faint* OR syncope. Results A total of 176 articles met our inclusion criteria. Studies relating to VVRs increased substantially from 1942 to 2019, with 84% published in the last 20 years. Articles were predominately observation (non‐intervention) studies (117; 66%), followed by intervention (knowledge inquiry) studies (31; 18%) and review (knowledge synthesis) studies (20; 11%). The evidence from intervention research was limited, with 14 strategies tested in 31 studies and often by the same research groups. Only 5 (3%) implementation and evaluation studies were found; all focused on evaluating the effects of a newly introduced intervention on VVR rates through uncontrolled or cross‐sectional study designs. Discussion VVR research is in the early stages of knowledge translation. More intervention research is needed to provide a robust evidence base as well as more published implementation research to share knowledge of translating research into policy and practice.

Background and Objectives: Maintaining a panel of committed anti-D donors is crucial for the production of anti-D immunoglobulin to prevent haemolytic disease of the foetus and newborn. Given low numbers of donors in the Australian panel, there is a need to better understand motivators and barriers specific to anti-D donors. Materials and Methods:A qualitative approach was used to gather perspectives of staff and current anti-D donors in Australia. Focus groups were held with staff involved with the anti-D programme. An asynchronous online discussion forum and interviews were conducted with donors. All data were coded using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.Results: Staff stressed the importance of recruiting donors who met their own informal criteria as well as the formal selection criteria in order to maximize the chances of donors committing to making regular plasma donations. In contrast, donors were motivated by having a personal connection to anti-D, the recipient group and being eligible to join the programme. Support from staff and understanding the value of their donations also helped donors overcome concerns about the risks of joining the programme and reduced barriers to remaining in the programme. Conclusion:Anti-D donors in Australia are motivated by multiple factors, including knowing who the recipient is, and dedicated staff are integral to building donors' commitment through education and support. Findings suggest the current approach to recruitment could be broadened to include all donors who meet formal selection criteria, with retention enhanced by reinforcing and rewarding the motives identified by donors for donating.