2016
DOI: 10.1111/trf.13627
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reasons for noncompliance in donor risk reporting regarding male‐to‐male sex

Abstract: The percentage found for noncompliance is similar to percentages in other compliance studies worldwide. Based on reported reasons, a substantial amount of noncompliers would become eligible for donating under a revised policy, possibly without jeopardizing blood safety.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

2
24
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
24
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the belief that blood screening is infallible and concerns about the confidentiality of their answers were given as reasons for non-disclosure [20]. This was confirmed in a Dutch study assessing the percentage of donating MSM and their reasons for non-compliance [21]. Recently, a study in the US was able to demonstrate that donors fill in the DQ framed by the questionnaire's general purpose rather than the specific topic of the individual questions.…”
Section: Special Focus On Sexual Risk Behaviormentioning
confidence: 50%
“…Furthermore, the belief that blood screening is infallible and concerns about the confidentiality of their answers were given as reasons for non-disclosure [20]. This was confirmed in a Dutch study assessing the percentage of donating MSM and their reasons for non-compliance [21]. Recently, a study in the US was able to demonstrate that donors fill in the DQ framed by the questionnaire's general purpose rather than the specific topic of the individual questions.…”
Section: Special Focus On Sexual Risk Behaviormentioning
confidence: 50%
“…An explanation for this result could be that in our study population more than one‐third of MSM reported that they were not currently sexually active with other men at that time (e.g., their reported last male‐to‐male sex was more than 12 months ago). In our compliance study in the Dutch donor population we found a comparable percentage of men who reported not being sexually active (e.g., they reported having had sex with a man just once and a long time ago) . In the US study respondents were recruited at settings primarily visited by men who identify themselves as MSM and where the majority of participants reported a homosexual or bisexual orientation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…We also examined participants’ willingness to donate and whether this differed between groups of MSM, non‐MSM, women, and according to age, education, and time since last male‐to‐male sex. This study was performed simultaneously with a study in the Dutch donor population in which we determined donor compliance with the permanent deferral for MSM in the Netherlands . Both studies were used to provide scientific support for lifting the permanent ban on blood donation for MSM in the Netherlands.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another concern when contemplating a more inclusive policy toward MSM is the possible effect on compliance. Surveys have consistently shown that some people donate in spite of later admitting that they were not eligible regarding certain criteria, including the MSM behavior . Liberalizing the eligibility of MSM might send the message that having sex with other men is not a significant risk factor, which could incite even more donors to be noncompliant.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surveys have consistently shown that some people donate in spite of later admitting that they were not eligible regarding certain criteria, including the MSM behavior. 9 Liberalizing the eligibility of MSM might send the message that having sex with other men is not a significant risk factor, which could incite even more donors to be noncompliant. Surveys conducted before and after the MSM donation policy was changed from a permanent to a temporary deferral did not show an increase in noncompliance.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%