BACKGROUND: Blood donors may hold conflicting thoughts about future donation. While they may perceive the direct benefit to themselves and others, they often report compelling reasons not to give again. As a result the standard encouragements to return may not be sufficient to motivate some donors. This study examined the effects of a postdonation adapted motivational interview (AMI) on blood donor attitudes and repeat donation behavior. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donors (n = 215) were randomly assigned to either an AMI or a no-interview control group. Approximately 1 month after their index donation, donors in the AMI group completed a brief telephone interview to clarify individual-specific motivations and values concerning blood donation and address potential barriers. They were then asked to complete questionnaires regarding donation attitudes, anxiety, self-efficacy, and intention to donate. Donors in the control group were also contacted 1 month after donation and asked to complete the same series of questionnaires. RESULTS: Donors in the AMI group reported greater intention to provide a future donation (F = 8.13, p < 0.05), more positive donation attitudes (F = 4.59, p < 0.05), and greater confidence in their ability to avoid adverse reactions (F = 10.26, p < 0.01). Further, AMI was associated with higher rates of attempted donation at 12 months (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.87). CONCLUSION: Application of an AMI may be an effective strategy to increase the donor pool by enhancing retention of existing donors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Blood donors may hold conflicting thoughts about future donation. While they may perceive the direct benefit to themselves and others, they often report compelling reasons not to give again. As a result the standard encouragements to return may not be sufficient to motivate some donors. This study examined the effects of a postdonation adapted motivational interview (AMI) on blood donor attitudes and repeat donation behavior. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donors (n = 215) were randomly assigned to either an AMI or a no-interview control group. Approximately 1 month after their index donation, donors in the AMI group completed a brief telephone interview to clarify individual-specific motivations and values concerning blood donation and address potential barriers. They were then asked to complete questionnaires regarding donation attitudes, anxiety, self-efficacy, and intention to donate. Donors in the control group were also contacted 1 month after donation and asked to complete the same series of questionnaires. RESULTS: Donors in the AMI group reported greater intention to provide a future donation (F = 8.13, p < 0.05), more positive donation attitudes (F = 4.59, p < 0.05), and greater confidence in their ability to avoid adverse reactions (F = 10.26, p < 0.01). Further, AMI was associated with higher rates of attempted donation at 12 months (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.87). CONCLUSION: Application of an AMI may be an effective strategy to increase the donor pool by enhancing retention of existing donors.
Authors: K P H Lemmens; C Abraham; T Hoekstra; R A C Ruiter; W L A M De Kort; J Brug; H P Schaalma Journal: Transfusion Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: G A Marlatt; J S Baer; D R Kivlahan; L A Dimeff; M E Larimer; L A Quigley; J M Somers; E Williams Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 1998-08
Authors: L M Gentilello; F P Rivara; D M Donovan; G J Jurkovich; E Daranciang; C W Dunn; A Villaveces; M Copass; R R Ries Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Tjeerd W Piersma; René Bekkers; Elisabeth F Klinkenberg; Wim L A M De Kort; Eva-Maria Merz Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Cesar de Almeida Neto; Alfredo Mendrone; Brian Custer; Jing Liu; Anna Bárbara Carneiro-Proietti; Silvana A Carneiro Leão; David J Wright; Edward L Murphy; Ester Cerdeira Sabino Journal: Transfusion Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Christopher R France; Janis L France; Bruce W Carlson; Victoria Frye; Louisa Duffy; Debra A Kessler; Mark Rebosa; Beth H Shaz Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Janis L France; Christopher R France; Bruce W Carlson; Debra A Kessler; Mark Rebosa; Beth H Shaz; Katrala Madden; Patricia M Carey Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Christopher R France; Janis L France; Bruce W Carlson; Lina K Himawan; Debra A Kessler; Mark Rebosa; Beth H Shaz; Katrala Madden; Patricia M Carey; P Maxwell Slepian; Brett Ankawi; Irina E Livitz; Kristen R Fox Journal: Transfusion Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Christopher R France; Janis L France; Mary Ellen Wissel; Blaine Ditto; Tara Dickert; Lina K Himawan Journal: Transfusion Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Christopher R France; Janis L France; Bruce W Carlson; Debra A Kessler; Mark Rebosa; Beth H Shaz; Katrala Madden; Patricia M Carey; Kristen R Fox; Irina E Livitz; Brett Ankawi; P Maxwell Slepian Journal: Transfusion Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 3.157