BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Predonation screening questions about sexual risk factors should provide an extra layer of safety from recently acquired infections that may be too early to be detected by testing. Donors are required to read a definition of sex as it applies to predonation screening questions each time they come to donate, but how well donors apply such definitions has not been evaluated. We aimed to determine how donors define sex when answering screening questions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 1297 whole blood donors were asked in a private interview to select from a list of sexual activities which ones they believed were being asked about in sexual background questions. Donors' definitions were coded as under-inclusive, correct or over-inclusive in relation to the blood services' definition. Qualitative interviews were carried out with 21 donors to understand reasoning behind definitions. RESULTS: Most donors had an over-inclusive definition (58.7%) or the correct definition (31.9%). Of the 9.4% of donors who had an under-inclusive definition, 95% included both vaginal and anal sex, but not oral sex. About 9% in each group were first-time donors (P > 0.05) who had never read the definition. The qualitative interviews indicated that donors reason their definition based on their own concept of transmissible disease risk. CONCLUSION: Donors apply a range of definitions of sex when answering questions about their sexual background. This may be due to different concepts of risk activities, and required reading of the definition has little impact.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Predonation screening questions about sexual risk factors should provide an extra layer of safety from recently acquired infections that may be too early to be detected by testing. Donors are required to read a definition of sex as it applies to predonation screening questions each time they come to donate, but how well donors apply such definitions has not been evaluated. We aimed to determine how donors define sex when answering screening questions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 1297 whole blood donors were asked in a private interview to select from a list of sexual activities which ones they believed were being asked about in sexual background questions. Donors' definitions were coded as under-inclusive, correct or over-inclusive in relation to the blood services' definition. Qualitative interviews were carried out with 21 donors to understand reasoning behind definitions. RESULTS: Most donors had an over-inclusive definition (58.7%) or the correct definition (31.9%). Of the 9.4% of donors who had an under-inclusive definition, 95% included both vaginal and anal sex, but not oral sex. About 9% in each group were first-time donors (P > 0.05) who had never read the definition. The qualitative interviews indicated that donors reason their definition based on their own concept of transmissible disease risk. CONCLUSION: Donors apply a range of definitions of sex when answering questions about their sexual background. This may be due to different concepts of risk activities, and required reading of the definition has little impact.
Authors: Giuseppina Maria Patavino; Cesar de Almeida-Neto; Jing Liu; David J Wright; Alfredo Mendrone-Junior; Maria Inês Lopes Ferreira; Anna Bárbara de Freitas Carneiro; Brian Custer; João Eduardo Ferreira; Michael P Busch; Ester Cerdeira Sabino Journal: Transfusion Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Vincenza Regine; Mariangela Raimondo; Laura Camoni; Maria Cristina Salfa; Pietro Gallo; Anna Colucci; Anna Maria Luzi; Barbara Suligoi Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 3.443