The deferred donor

Compernolle, Veerle

doi:10.1111/voxs.12370

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the deferral of donors may have an adverse impact on donors and their future donation intentions, resulting in an ongoing loss of donors/donations. 16 Given the very small WNV TT risk in Australia associated with donors returning from the US, in lieu of deferring all donors returning from the US, there are a number of alternative strategies that could be used to mitigate the WNV TT risk in Australia while reducing the potential loss of donations for fresh products. One alternative strategy would be to apply donor restrictions only for the period of highest risk, that is, from July to October, as the risk outside this period is minuscule.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During 2018, an estimated 2800 of approximately 820,000 blood donations used for clinical products would have been restricted to plasma for fractionated products due to donors with recent travel to the US. In addition, the deferral of donors may have an adverse impact on donors and their future donation intentions, resulting in an ongoing loss of donors/donations 16–18 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

West Nile virus transfusion‐transmission risk in Australia associated with a seasonal outbreak in the United States

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: West Nile virus (WNV) is a potentially transfusion-transmissible virus endemic in the US. The aim of this study was to estimate the monthly WNV transfusion transmission (TT) risk in Australia associated with donors returning from the US in 2018 and consider the implications for mitigation strategies. Study Design and Methods: We used a probabilistic risk model to estimate the monthly WNV TT risks for each outbreak state/district in the US for the 2018 transmission season and the cumulative monthly risk for all US states/districts. Results: The highest monthly cumulative transfusion risk in Australia occurred in August 2018 when 746 West Nile neuroinvasive disease cases were reported in the US and the estimated mean WNV TT risk in Australia was 1 in 1.0 Â 10 8 donations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6 Â 10 8 -7.0 Â 10 7 ). The highest risk during August was associated with California, with a mean risk of 1 in 4.1 Â 10 8 donations (95% CI: 2.9 Â 10 8 -6.6 Â 10 8 ), representing 24% of the total risk in Australia. The cumulative TT risk in Australia for the other 11 months varied from 1 in 1.5 Â 10 8 donations (95% CI: 2.3 Â 10 8 -1.0 Â 10 8 ) in September to 1 in 3.9 Â 10 10 donations (95% CI: 6.1 Â 10 10 -2.7 Â 10 10 ) in February. Discussion: Our modeling indicates that the WNV TT risk in Australia associated with seasonal outbreaks in the US is extremely small and may not warrant donation restrictions for donors returning from the US.infectious disease testing, transfusion-transmitted disease risk, West Nile virus | INTRODUCTIONWest Nile virus (WNV) is a mosquito-borne virus within the Flavivirus genus. 1,2 Since the mid-1990s, WNV has become more widespread, particularly in Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. 3 In the United States (US), WNV was first reported in Queens, New York in 1999 and has now been detected in all 48 contiguous states. 4,5 The number of reported West Nile neuroinvasive disease (WNND) cases in the US remained <100 until an exponential increase in 2002 when 2946 cases were reported, the highest annual total to date. 5 From 2002 to 2020, the annual number of reported WNND cases varied between 386 (2009) and 2873 (2012). 5 WNV infection includes a presymptomatic viraemic period and between 73.5% and 85.3% of infected individuals do not develop clinical symptoms. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] In addition, transfusion transmission (TT) of WNV has been reported. 7,13

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

West Nile virus transfusion‐transmission risk in Australia associated with a seasonal outbreak in the United States

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the intervention in the Gemelli et al (2021a) study was more elaborate—consisting of a brochure, plus a guided conversation with a member of the collection staff and a follow-up e-mail—our results also suggest that providing extra information to deferred donors may help to retain these donors. This shows that deferred donors have a relatively high informational need (Compernolle, 2017) and that providing clear information about the nature and duration of the deferral may help to encourage return (Davison et al, 2020). Multiple explanations are possible in trying to understand why the information brochure was more effective than the alternative good deeds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing Extra Information Increases Blood Donor Return After Deferral While Offering an Alternative Good Deed Does Not: Results From a Field Randomized Controlled Trial

Spekman

Tilburg

Merz

2022

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donating blood (components) is considered a “good deed,” especially in voluntary, nonremunerated contexts where blood is donated for unknown recipients. For donor and recipient safety, blood banks apply deferral criteria. Deferred donors are less likely to return for future donations. Based on theory (e.g., on emotion, habit, and identity) and practice, several methods have been suggested to encourage return after deferral, yet few of these methods have been tested in rigorous study designs, or in the field. In this study, we therefore investigated whether offering an alternative “good deed” or providing additional information about deferral would increase donor return. Results of a randomized controlled field trial at 10 Dutch blood donation centers showed that offering alternative good deeds after deferral did not significantly increase donor return, while providing additional information did increase whole blood donor return. This suggests that additional information contributes to the continuation of pro-social behavior.

show abstract

“…Decisions regarding the implementation of risk mitigation strategies require consideration of a number of factors including cost‐effectiveness, product sufficiency, and potential adverse impact on donors 23–28 . We have developed a novel model for estimating the TT risk associated with donors returning from outbreak countries, which can be included in an overall risk assessment process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Decisions regarding the implementation of risk mitigation strategies require consideration of a number of factors including cost-effectiveness, product sufficiency, and potential adverse impact on donors. [23][24][25][26][27][28] We have developed a novel model for estimating the TT risk associated with donors returning from outbreak countries, which can be included in an overall risk assessment process. When simultaneous outbreaks of WNF occur in several countries in a region, it is important to estimate the total regional TT risk, which is the sum of the individual risks for each reporting country.…”

Section: Relative Tt Risk Ratio For Each Countrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the West Nile virus transfusion transmission risk in a nonoutbreak country associated with traveling donors

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: West Nile virus (WNV) is a mosquito-borne virus and transfusion transmission (TT) has been demonstrated. The European Union and neighboring countries experience an annual transmission season. Study Design and Methods: We developed a novel probabilistic model to estimate the WNV TT risk in Australia attributable to returned donors who had travelled to the European Union and neighboring countries during the 2018. We estimated weekly WNV TT risks in Australia for each outbreak country and the cumulative risk for all countries. Results: Highest mean weekly TT risk in Australia attributable to donors returning from a specific outbreak country was 1 in 23.3 million (plausible range, 16.8-41.9 million) donations during Week 39 in Croatia. Highest mean weekly cumulative TT risk was 1 in 8.5 million donations (plausible range, 5.1-17.8 million) during Week 35. Conclusions: The estimated TT risk in Australia attributable to returning donors from the European Union and neighboring countries in 2018 was very small, and additional risk mitigation strategies were not indicated. In the context of such low TT risks, a simpler but effective approach would be to monitor the number of weekly reported West Nile fever cases and implement risk modeling only when the reported cases reached a predefined number or trigger point.

show abstract

The deferred donor

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

West Nile virus transfusion‐transmission risk in Australia associated with a seasonal outbreak in the United States

West Nile virus transfusion‐transmission risk in Australia associated with a seasonal outbreak in the United States

Providing Extra Information Increases Blood Donor Return After Deferral While Offering an Alternative Good Deed Does Not: Results From a Field Randomized Controlled Trial

Modeling the West Nile virus transfusion transmission risk in a nonoutbreak country associated with traveling donors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About