BACKGROUND: Postdonation information (PDI) occurs when a donor fails to report a risk that would have resulted in deferral, but at some subsequent point is disclosed. Donors' perspectives on and perceived reasons for their PDIs have not been previously studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted with PDI, appropriately deferred (and not PDI), and accepted donors from the six REDS-II blood centers. Telephone interviews were conducted with donors using semistructured discussion guides after their most recent donation or donation attempt. Salient themes were identified within and across the three donor categories using interview recordings and notes. RESULTS: Sixty-six donors were interviewed (35 PDIs, 21 appropriately deferred, and 10 accepted). Cases could be grouped into one of three broad clusters according to the apparent primary reason for the PDI event: perceived changes in rules or application of more intensive screening procedures at this visit versus prior visit(s), issues of recall or interpretation of a question, and discrepancies in recollections of timing. CONCLUSIONS: While descriptive and demographic information exists on the numbers and types of PDI events and donors, there has never been a qualitative study exploring donation experiences and possible reasons for their PDIs. This exploratory study based on semistructured interviews of donors identified several potentially actionable areas including the need for screeners to clarify the meaning of and answers to certain questions and helping donors accurately remember the details and dates of deferrable activities.
BACKGROUND: Postdonation information (PDI) occurs when a donor fails to report a risk that would have resulted in deferral, but at some subsequent point is disclosed. Donors' perspectives on and perceived reasons for their PDIs have not been previously studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted with PDI, appropriately deferred (and not PDI), and accepted donors from the six REDS-II blood centers. Telephone interviews were conducted with donors using semistructured discussion guides after their most recent donation or donation attempt. Salient themes were identified within and across the three donor categories using interview recordings and notes. RESULTS: Sixty-six donors were interviewed (35 PDIs, 21 appropriately deferred, and 10 accepted). Cases could be grouped into one of three broad clusters according to the apparent primary reason for the PDI event: perceived changes in rules or application of more intensive screening procedures at this visit versus prior visit(s), issues of recall or interpretation of a question, and discrepancies in recollections of timing. CONCLUSIONS: While descriptive and demographic information exists on the numbers and types of PDI events and donors, there has never been a qualitative study exploring donation experiences and possible reasons for their PDIs. This exploratory study based on semistructured interviews of donors identified several potentially actionable areas including the need for screeners to clarify the meaning of and answers to certain questions and helping donors accurately remember the details and dates of deferrable activities.
Authors: Johanna C Wiersum-Osselton; Tanneke Marijt-van der Kreek; Anneke Brand; Ingrid Veldhuizen; Johanna G van der Bom; Wim de Kort Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 3.443
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