P Duboz1, B Cunéo. 1. UMR, CNRS, université de la Méditerranée/EFS, Marseille, France. prisciduboz@yahoo.fr
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: Describe and compare the socioeconomic status of regular donors, occasional donors and nondonors, considering the sociodemographic characteristics and self-rated health of individuals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The survey of this study consists of 1400 individuals, aged from 18 to 65. Sociodemographic characteristics, blood donation, self-rated health and socio-economic status of individuals have been recorded by phone interviews (mean: 15minutes). Statistical analyses used in this study are Chi(2) and multinomial logistic regressions. RESULTS: Socioeconomic status is associated to donor status. However, it only differentiates nondonors and other population categories: intermediary professions, students and retired are more often regular donors than nondonors. And senior management and higher intellectual professions, as intermediary professions and students are more often occasional donors than nondonors. CONCLUSIONS: Even when sociodemographic variables and self-rated health are considered, socioeconomical status stays associated to blood donor status. Thus, this article highlights the importance of socioeconomic status in the blood donors' population structure. This study also shows that occasional donors, that should be resensitized, belong to the same socioeconomical categories than regular donors. Finally, this article provides research and sensitizing clues for some of the socioeconomic status analysed.
AIM OF THE STUDY: Describe and compare the socioeconomic status of regular donors, occasional donors and nondonors, considering the sociodemographic characteristics and self-rated health of individuals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The survey of this study consists of 1400 individuals, aged from 18 to 65. Sociodemographic characteristics, blood donation, self-rated health and socio-economic status of individuals have been recorded by phone interviews (mean: 15minutes). Statistical analyses used in this study are Chi(2) and multinomial logistic regressions. RESULTS: Socioeconomic status is associated to donor status. However, it only differentiates nondonors and other population categories: intermediary professions, students and retired are more often regular donors than nondonors. And senior management and higher intellectual professions, as intermediary professions and students are more often occasional donors than nondonors. CONCLUSIONS: Even when sociodemographic variables and self-rated health are considered, socioeconomical status stays associated to blood donor status. Thus, this article highlights the importance of socioeconomic status in the blood donors' population structure. This study also shows that occasional donors, that should be resensitized, belong to the same socioeconomical categories than regular donors. Finally, this article provides research and sensitizing clues for some of the socioeconomic status analysed.