Literature DB >> 16430669

An investigation of the impact of prolonged waiting times on blood donors in Ireland.

T McKeever1, M R Sweeney, A Staines.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of prolonged queuing times on blood donors, by measuring their satisfaction levels, and positive and negative affects. As donation times have increased over the past number of years within the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, this is an important issue to examine in a climate where voluntary donors are becoming scarce and demands on people's time are increasing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-five blood donors were sampled from one urban and one rural blood donor clinic. The respondents conducted a questionnaire by means of face-to-face interview, while waiting in the clinic. The questionnaire contained the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), and a waiting satisfaction scale. Both actual and perceived waiting times of the donors were noted.
RESULTS: Waiting time was found to be negatively related to satisfaction. Inexperienced donors expressed higher levels of negative affect than experienced donors. Urban donors were significantly more satisfied than rural donors. There was a significant difference in perceived waiting time between lone donors and those queuing in a group, with those waiting alone perceiving their wait as shorter. While all respondents stated that they intended to donate again, over one-third stated that prolonged waiting times would be their most likely deterrent. However, only 15% stated that long queuing times might actually prevent them from donating in the future, and almost all respondents said that they would recommend donation to a friend, despite long queuing times.
CONCLUSIONS: Although our results show that the respondents were not satisfied with current waiting times, it did not seem to affect their future intentions to donate. These findings provide some optimism for the future of blood donation in Ireland, as they suggest a strong sense of commitment to donation within the population sampled. Future research could explore the application of 'the service industry' approach to waiting times to blood donation clinics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16430669     DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2006.00734.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vox Sang        ISSN: 0042-9007            Impact factor:   2.144


  6 in total

1.  Gender differences in giving blood: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Marco Bani; Barbara Giussani
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.443

2.  Women as whole blood donors: offers, donations and deferrals in the province of Huelva, south-western Spain.

Authors:  Dalmiro Prados Madrona; María Dolores Fernández Herrera; Dalmiro Prados Jiménez; Sonsoles Gómez Giraldo; Rita Robles Campos
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Characteristics of donors who do or do not return to give blood and barriers to their return.

Authors:  Anne Wevers; Daniël H J Wigboldus; Wim L A M de Kort; Rick van Baaren; Ingrid J T Veldhuizen
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.443

4.  Donor satisfaction with a new german blood donor questionnaire and intention of the donor to return for further donations.

Authors:  Christian Weidmann; Michael Müller-Steinhardt; Sven Schneider; Eberhard Weck; Harald Klüter
Journal:  Transfus Med Hemother       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 3.747

Review 5.  Beyond Description: The Predictive Role of Affect, Memory, and Context in the Decision to Donate or Not Donate Blood.

Authors:  Barbara Masser; Eamonn Ferguson; Eva-Maria Merz; Lisa Williams
Journal:  Transfus Med Hemother       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.747

6.  Development and Validation of a Malaysian Blood Donor's Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Authors:  Pei Pei Tan; Chee Tao Chang; Jernih Abdul Rahman; Sabariah Mohd Noor
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2021-06-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.