Validation of new, gender‐neutral questions on recent sexual behaviors among plasma donors and men who have sex with men

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Several blood services might eventually interview donors with gender-neutral questions on sexual behaviors to improve the inclusivity of blood donation. We tested two ways (i.e., "scenarios") of asking donors about their recent sexual behaviors. Materials and Methods:The study comprised 126 regular source plasma donors and 102 gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM), including 73 cis-gbMSM (i.e., the "cis-gbMSM subgroup," which excluded nonbinary, genderqueer, and trans individuals). In Scenario 1, participants were asked if, in the last 3 months, they "have […] had a new sexual partner or more than one sexual partner." In Scenario 2, they were asked "Have you had a new sexual partner?" and "have you had more than one sexual partner?". Validation questions included more specific questions on the type of partners and sexual activity. Results: Among plasma donors, sensitivity was 100.0% for both scenarios; specificity was 100.0% and 99.1% for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Among gbMSM, sensitivity was 74.5% and 82.9% for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively; specificity was 100.0% for both scenarios. Among cis-gbMSM, sensitivity was 88.6% and 100.0% for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively; specificity was 100.0% for both scenarios. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of Scenario 2 was significantly higher than that of Scenario 1 among gbMSM and in the cis-gbMSM subgroup (all p < .05). Conclusion:Scenario 2 questions performed well among plasma donors and cis-gbMSM, but less so in the broader gbMSM population.blood safety, donors, men who have sex with men, transfusion-transmissible infections, transfusion medicine Abbreviations: AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CIs, confidence intervals; gbMSM, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; MSM, men who have sex with men.

Implementation of sexual risk behavior donor screening in Canada

“…Also, the wording of the questions was similar but not identical in the survey compared to the actual donor screening questionnaire. Validation of possible wording of the new questions demonstrated some variability in the sensitivity of the questions depending on the exact way that they are phrased 17 …”

“…Validation of possible wording of the new questions demonstrated some variability in the sensitivity of the questions depending on the exact way that they are phrased. 17 It is difficult to estimate donation loss due to donor dissatisfaction with new questions added to donor screening. In the on-clinic study, most donors were comfortable with being asked sexual behavior questions, such as having more than one partner or a new partner.…”

End of selection criteria based on sexual orientation: An international symposium on alternatives to donation deferral

“…Among regular plasma donors, the two scenarios had comparable (and near-perfect) sensitivities and specificities based on validation questions that included more specific questions on the type of partners and sexual activity. However, among cis-MSM, the scenario 1 question had a much lower (and unacceptable) sensitivity of 88.6%, compared with 100.0% for the scenario 2 questions [22], which were therefore implemented.…”

“…The optimal phrasing of the question on sexual partners was empirically validated among regular plasma donors and cis-MSM donors. Two scenarios were tested: one in which a compound question was asked, and one in which separate questions were asked (see the full publication for specific wording) [22]. Among regular plasma donors, the two scenarios had comparable (and near-perfect) sensitivities and specificities based on validation questions that included more specific questions on the type of partners and sexual activity.…”