BACKGROUND: Descriptions of donor demographics are of value in formulating recruitment and retention strategies. The demographics of successful (SV), unsuccessful (UV; meaning a nonuseable unit), and deferred (DV) donor visits over a 4-year period were investigated using Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study (REDS)-II databases. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Fourteen deferral categories were created that included low hematocrit (Hct) or hemoglobin (Hb), feeling unwell, malaria travel, malaria other, couldn't wait, blood pressure or pulse, medical diagnosis, medication, test results, higher-risk behavior, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), CJD, needle exposure or tattoo, and other. Rates per 10,000 donor presentations were determined for each category globally and for six subcategorizations (first-time or repeat donor status, sex, race/ethnicity, age, education, and fixed or mobile donation location). Deferral rates were also calculated on simultaneous stratifications of donor status, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 5,607,922 donor presentations there were 4,553,145 SVs (81.2%), 302,828 UVs (5.4%), and 751,381 DVs (13.4%). Overall rates of deferral ranged from 0.6 per 10,000 presentations for CJD, human growth hormone, or dura mater exposure to 777 per 10,000 presentations for low Hct or Hb. Deferral rates were remarkably different by first-time or repeat donor status, sex, race/ethnicity, and other demographics. The highest overall deferral rate was 3953 per 10,000 presentations, or nearly 40% in first-time, female, Asian donors, and the lowest rate was 5.6% in repeat, male, white donors. CONCLUSION: Successful donation visits according to demographic characteristics need to be placed within the context of all donor visits. Deferral rates indicate that the burden of donor deferral is high. Efforts to expand the diversity of the donor base through recruitment of minority donors may bring additional challenges because certain deferral reasons were proportionally much higher in these groups.
BACKGROUND: Descriptions of donor demographics are of value in formulating recruitment and retention strategies. The demographics of successful (SV), unsuccessful (UV; meaning a nonuseable unit), and deferred (DV) donor visits over a 4-year period were investigated using Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study (REDS)-II databases. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Fourteen deferral categories were created that included low hematocrit (Hct) or hemoglobin (Hb), feeling unwell, malaria travel, malaria other, couldn't wait, blood pressure or pulse, medical diagnosis, medication, test results, higher-risk behavior, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), CJD, needle exposure or tattoo, and other. Rates per 10,000 donor presentations were determined for each category globally and for six subcategorizations (first-time or repeat donor status, sex, race/ethnicity, age, education, and fixed or mobile donation location). Deferral rates were also calculated on simultaneous stratifications of donor status, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 5,607,922 donor presentations there were 4,553,145 SVs (81.2%), 302,828 UVs (5.4%), and 751,381 DVs (13.4%). Overall rates of deferral ranged from 0.6 per 10,000 presentations for CJD, humangrowth hormone, or dura mater exposure to 777 per 10,000 presentations for low Hct or Hb. Deferral rates were remarkably different by first-time or repeat donor status, sex, race/ethnicity, and other demographics. The highest overall deferral rate was 3953 per 10,000 presentations, or nearly 40% in first-time, female, Asian donors, and the lowest rate was 5.6% in repeat, male, white donors. CONCLUSION: Successful donation visits according to demographic characteristics need to be placed within the context of all donor visits. Deferral rates indicate that the burden of donor deferral is high. Efforts to expand the diversity of the donor base through recruitment of minority donors may bring additional challenges because certain deferral reasons were proportionally much higher in these groups.
Authors: Y Wu; S A Glynn; G B Schreiber; D J Wright; A Lo; E L Murphy; S H Kleinman; G Garratty Journal: Transfusion Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: S A Glynn; G B Schreiber; M P Busch; S H Kleinman; A E Williams; C C Nass; H E Ownby; J W Smith Journal: Transfusion Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Beth H Shaz; Adelbert B James; Krista L Hillyer; George B Schreiber; Christopher D Hillyer Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Brian Custer; Karen S Schlumpf; David Wright; Toby L Simon; Susan Wilkinson; Paul M Ness Journal: Transfusion Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Ritchard G Cable; Simone A Glynn; Joseph E Kiss; Alan E Mast; Whitney R Steele; Edward L Murphy; David J Wright; Ronald A Sacher; Jerry L Gottschall; Vibha Vij; Toby L Simon Journal: Transfusion Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Brian Custer; Eric S Johnson; Sean D Sullivan; Tom K Hazlet; Scott D Ramsey; Nora V Hirschler; Edward L Murphy; Michael P Busch Journal: Transfusion Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Thelma T Gonçalez; Ester C Sabino; Karen S Schlumpf; David J Wright; Alfredo Mendrone; Maria Lopes; Silvana Leão; Carolina Miranda; Ligia Capuani; Anna Barbara F Carneiro-Proietti; Fernando Basques; João E Ferreira; Michael Busch; Brian Custer Journal: Transfusion Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.157
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