Negative experiences and donor return: an examination of the role of asking for something different

Masser, Barbara M.; Bove, Liliana L.; White, Katherine M.; Bagot, Kathleen L.

doi:10.1111/trf.13390

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, FTDs seem not to suffer negative effects on their well-being after their first blood donation. Our findings are in line with those of Masser et al [8], who found that FTDs did not experience psychological reactions (e.g. stress, anxiety, fear of needles) after their first blood donation.…”

Section: Well-being and Its Impact On Ftds Return Ratessupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Our findings are in line with those of Masser et al . , who found that FTDs did not experience psychological reactions (e.g. stress, anxiety, fear of needles) after their first blood donation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…showed that only 46·8% of FTDs returned for a second donation and only 25·3% returned for a third donation within a 15‐month period without any intervention . Predictors for not returning after the first donation are being young and female and experiencing negative reactions during the first blood donation . Increasing the return rate of FTDs would substantially increase the donor pool.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Well‐being and return rate of first‐time whole blood donors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives Previous studies observed a transient increase in well‐being in about one‐third of regular donors after blood donation. In addition, personal contact with donors after donation seems to increase return rates. We were interested whether changes in well‐being and/or personal contact after the first donation impact return rates of first‐time donors (FTDs). Materials and methods First‐time donors were randomized to a questionnaire group (QG), in which questionnaires assessing the well‐being had to be filled in, or a control group (CG), which was not contacted with a questionnaire. The QG had to complete the same questionnaire three times at the day of the first donation and then four times over an 8‐week period with reminding calls by the study coordinator. Return rates of participants were followed for 12 months. Results A total of 102 FTDs participated in the QG and 115 in the CG. Changes in well‐being after the first donation had minimal impact on the return rates. In contrast, contacting FTDs after their first donation had a significant impact on the return rate of male donors (89·2% in the QG vs. 58·3% in the CG; P = 0·001). Females showed no significant difference in return rates between both groups (P = 0·32). Conclusion The well‐being of FTDs had no influence on their return rate. The intervention of regular contacts during a research project follow‐up resulted in an increased return rate of male but not of female FTDs. The pronounced difference of the impact of this intervention between male and female donors requires further studies.

show abstract

Section: Well-being and Its Impact On Ftds Return Ratessupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Well‐being and return rate of first‐time whole blood donors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on the reason for deferral, the donor is deferred for a period of time ranging from a single day to indefinitely . Temporarily deferred donors are welcome to donate again once the deferral period has ended.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do deferred donors continue their donations? A large‐scale register study on whole blood donor return in the Netherlands

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Temporary deferral of whole blood donors is essential for a safe blood supply, yet deferral may impact donor return. Different deferral reasons may differently affect return, and donor experience may interfere with this. Therefore, we studied the joint effect of deferral reason and donor experience on return. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We used a large‐scale retrospective cohort design including all Dutch donors with a whole blood donation attempt in 2013 to 2015 (n = 343,825). We established details of the target donation (including deferral reason if applicable), details of attendances in the 2 years after the target donation, donor characteristics (blood type, sex, age), and donor experience (first‐time, novice, experienced, reactivated). Descriptive statistics as well as time‐to‐events methods were used. RESULTS Experienced donors were most likely to return, even after deferral (nondeferred 96% vs. deferred 92%). First‐time and reactivated donors were less likely to return after deferral (69 and 61%, respectively) compared to their nondeferred counterparts (82 and 76%, respectively). First‐time hemoglobin (Hb)‐deferred donors were less likely to return and slower to return than other donors. Similar results were found for reactivated donors deferred for short‐term medical reasons. CONCLUSION Deferral reason and donor experience individually as well as jointly impacted donor return. Particularly first‐time and reactivated donors were at risk of nonreturn, especially when deferred for Hb or short‐term medical reasons, respectively. Blood banks designing and implementing donor retention strategies should thus not only take successful but also unsuccessful donation experiences and different experience levels into account.

show abstract

“…Im Gegensatz zu den positiven Einflussfaktoren wirken sich ungünstige (körperliche und psychische) Erfahrungen mit dem Spendeprozess negativ auf die Ausprägung von Spenderloyalität aus [37,38]…”

Section: Negative Einflussfaktorenunclassified

Psychologische Optionen zur Reaktivierung und Bindung von Blutspendern

Greffin

Muehlan

Sümnig

et al. 2018

Transfusionsmedizin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDas derzeitige Verhältnis von Vollblutspendern und -empfängern 1 wird in Zukunft weiter aus dem Gleichgewicht geraten: Der demografische Wandel und die Zunahme von Spenderausschlusskriterien führen zu einer Reduktion potenzieller Vollblutspender, während der Bedarf an Blutprodukten weiterhin steigt. Aus diesem Grund wird die Rekrutierung von Neuspendern allein nicht ausreichend sein, um einen stabilen Spenderpool zu erhalten. Um die Versorgung mit Blutprodukten zukünftig trotzdem gewährleisten zu können, rücken alternative Interventionsoptionen zunehmend in den Vordergrund. Der vorliegende Artikel zeigt psychologische Optionen auf, die auf die Begrenzung des drohenden Blutkonservenmangels abzielen, und richtet dabei den Fokus auf die wichtigste Ressource 2 – den Blutspender. Dafür sollen ergänzende Reaktivierungsmaßnahmen, die der Initiierung eines erneuten Blutspendeversuchs dienen, erläutert und diskutiert werden. Anschließend wird das Konstrukt der Spenderloyalität als eine aussichtsreiche Möglichkeit der langfristigen Spenderbindung vorgestellt.

show abstract

Negative experiences and donor return: an examination of the role of asking for something different

Cited by 16 publications

References 53 publications

Well‐being and return rate of first‐time whole blood donors

Well‐being and return rate of first‐time whole blood donors

Do deferred donors continue their donations? A large‐scale register study on whole blood donor return in the Netherlands

Psychologische Optionen zur Reaktivierung und Bindung von Blutspendern

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About