BACKGROUND: The healthy donor effect has been mentioned as a methodologic problem in blood donor health research. The aim of this study was to investigate different elements of the healthy donor effect. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: First, recent donors (<4 years registered as a donor) were compared with the general population. Second, active and lapsed donors were compared. Third, short-career donors (<14 donations) were compared with long-career donors (>37 donations). Various health and lifestyle indicators were used as outcome measures. RESULTS: Compared to the general population, recent donors had a better self-rated health (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.61), visited the general practitioner (GP) less often (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60-0.72), and were less often treated by a specialist (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). Recent donors also exhibited a healthier lifestyle compared to the general population. When examining active versus lapsed donors, similar results were found in favor of active donors. With respect to donation career, long-career donors were healthier than short-career donors, but effects were less strong; the ORs were 1.33 (95% CI, 1.15-1.54) for self-rated health, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94) for GP visit, and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-1.00) for specialist treatment. When comparing long- and short-career donors on lifestyle indicators, there were barely any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly point to the presence of a healthy donor effect when comparing donors with the general population and active versus lapsed donors. The healthy donor effect was less pronounced within active donors, when comparing long- and short-career donors. Therefore, health research should primarily be carried out within active donors.
BACKGROUND: The healthy donor effect has been mentioned as a methodologic problem in blood donor health research. The aim of this study was to investigate different elements of the healthy donor effect. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: First, recent donors (<4 years registered as a donor) were compared with the general population. Second, active and lapsed donors were compared. Third, short-career donors (<14 donations) were compared with long-career donors (>37 donations). Various health and lifestyle indicators were used as outcome measures. RESULTS: Compared to the general population, recent donors had a better self-rated health (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.61), visited the general practitioner (GP) less often (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60-0.72), and were less often treated by a specialist (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). Recent donors also exhibited a healthier lifestyle compared to the general population. When examining active versus lapsed donors, similar results were found in favor of active donors. With respect to donation career, long-career donors were healthier than short-career donors, but effects were less strong; the ORs were 1.33 (95% CI, 1.15-1.54) for self-rated health, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94) for GP visit, and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-1.00) for specialist treatment. When comparing long- and short-career donors on lifestyle indicators, there were barely any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly point to the presence of a healthy donor effect when comparing donors with the general population and active versus lapsed donors. The healthy donor effect was less pronounced within active donors, when comparing long- and short-career donors. Therefore, health research should primarily be carried out within active donors.
Authors: Rosa de Groot; Jeroen Lakerveld; Johannes Brug; Johan W Lagerberg; Dirk de Korte; Trynke Hoekstra; Wim L A M de Kort; Katja van den Hurk Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Farnaz Vahidnia; Susan L Stramer; Debra Kessler; Beth Shaz; German Leparc; David E Krysztof; Simone A Glynn; Brian Custer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Alan E Mast; Whitney R Steele; Bryce Johnson; David J Wright; Ritchard G Cable; Patricia Carey; Jerome L Gottschall; Joseph E Kiss; Toby L Simon; Edward L Murphy Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Ole B Pedersen; Gregor B E Jemec; Mattias A S Henning; Kristina S Ibler; Isabella Loft; Sisse R Ostrowski; Christian Erikstrup; Kaspar R Nielsen; Mie T Bruun; Henrik Ullum; Maria Didriksen; Khoa M Dinh Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jefferson M Jones; Mars Stone; Hasan Sulaeman; Rebecca V Fink; Honey Dave; Matthew E Levy; Clara Di Germanio; Valerie Green; Edward Notari; Paula Saa; Brad J Biggerstaff; Donna Strauss; Debra Kessler; Ralph Vassallo; Rita Reik; Susan Rossmann; Mark Destree; Kim-Anh Nguyen; Merlyn Sayers; Chris Lough; Daniel W Bougie; Megan Ritter; Gerardo Latoni; Billy Weales; Stacy Sime; Jed Gorlin; Nicole E Brown; Carolyn V Gould; Kevin Berney; Tina J Benoit; Maureen J Miller; Dane Freeman; Deeksha Kartik; Alicia M Fry; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner; Aron J Hall; Adam MacNeil; Adi V Gundlapalli; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Susan I Gerber; Monica E Patton; Brian Custer; Phillip Williamson; Graham Simmons; Natalie J Thornburg; Steven Kleinman; Susan L Stramer; Jean Opsomer; Michael P Busch Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kelsey Hazegh; Fang Fang; Marjorie D Bravo; Johnson Q Tran; Marcus O Muench; Rachael P Jackman; Nareg Roubinian; Lorenzo Bertolone; Angelo DʼAlessandro; Larry Dumont; Grier P Page; Tamir Kanias Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 3.157