Barbara Masser1,2, Christopher R France3, Jayne Foot4, Amy Rozsa4, Jane Hayman5, Daniel Waller6, Everard Hunder4. 1. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia. 2. Research & Development, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. 4. National Marketing, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Clinical Services and Research, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many nondonors are positive about blood donation and this motivates booking an appointment to donate. However, as their appointment approaches barriers to donating-such as anxiety-may become salient and deter attendance. Building on research of France and colleagues demonstrating the positive effect of enhanced preparation materials on donor recruitment, this study sought to determine whether these materials could effectively boost first donation appointment attendance. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A field study comprising a 3 (brochure: none, e-mail, hard copy) × 2 (national call center [NCC] contact: none, call) between-subjects design was conducted with 3646 nondonors who had scheduled their first appointment. Participants in the brochure conditions received either a hard copy or an e-mailed link to electronic materials modeled on the donor preparation research of France and colleagues. Participants in the NCC call condition also received a call scripted in line with these preparation materials. The key outcome was new donor attendance rate. RESULTS: Although first-appointment attendance rates were high in the control (no additional contact) condition at 85.07% of those not canceling in advance, dual exposure to the preparation materials through a NCC call and an electronic brochure boosted attendance. The relative risk of attending in the NCC call and electronic brochure condition was 1.0836 (95% confidence interval, 1.0352-1.1343; p = 0.0006), with attendance 8.36% higher than in the control. This gain in attendance came at a relative increase in recruitment costs of 2%. CONCLUSION: The use of tailored communication to address new donors' concerns and prepare them for donating bolsters attendance rates.
BACKGROUND: Many nondonors are positive about blood donation and this motivates booking an appointment to donate. However, as their appointment approaches barriers to donating-such as anxiety-may become salient and deter attendance. Building on research of France and colleagues demonstrating the positive effect of enhanced preparation materials on donor recruitment, this study sought to determine whether these materials could effectively boost first donation appointment attendance. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A field study comprising a 3 (brochure: none, e-mail, hard copy) × 2 (national call center [NCC] contact: none, call) between-subjects design was conducted with 3646 nondonors who had scheduled their first appointment. Participants in the brochure conditions received either a hard copy or an e-mailed link to electronic materials modeled on the donor preparation research of France and colleagues. Participants in the NCC call condition also received a call scripted in line with these preparation materials. The key outcome was new donor attendance rate. RESULTS: Although first-appointment attendance rates were high in the control (no additional contact) condition at 85.07% of those not canceling in advance, dual exposure to the preparation materials through a NCC call and an electronic brochure boosted attendance. The relative risk of attending in the NCC call and electronic brochure condition was 1.0836 (95% confidence interval, 1.0352-1.1343; p = 0.0006), with attendance 8.36% higher than in the control. This gain in attendance came at a relative increase in recruitment costs of 2%. CONCLUSION: The use of tailored communication to address new donors' concerns and prepare them for donating bolsters attendance rates.
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: Christopher R France; Janis L France; Lina K Himawan; Louisa Duffy; Debra A Kessler; Mark Rebosa; Shiraz Rehmani; Victoria Frye; Beth H Shaz Journal: Transfusion Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Simon G Thompson; Stephen Kaptoge; Carmel Moore; Matthew Walker; Jane Armitage; Willem H Ouwehand; David J Roberts; John Danesh Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen Kaptoge; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Carmel Moore; Matthew Walker; Jane Armitage; Willem H Ouwehand; David J Roberts; John Danesh; Simon G Thompson Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 30.153