Bert Avau1,2, Emmy De Buck1,3, Philippe Vandekerckhove2,3,4, Veerle Compernolle4. 1. Centre for Evidence-Based Practice (CEBaP), Belgian Red Cross, Mechelen, Belgium. 2. Cochrane Belgium, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Belgian Red Cross, Mechelen, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions save lives, but carry the risk of causing transfusion-transmitted diseases. This risk is limited by strict donor selection criteria, the most controversial being the exclusion of men who had sex with men (MSM). This cross-sectional study investigated knowledge and beliefs of the general public concerning donor exclusion criteria, with emphasis on MSM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A representative sample of the population of Flanders, Belgium was questioned using a web-based questionnaire. The effect of additional information on people's opinions was tested. RESULTS: People were less aware of the exclusion of MSM than of other risk populations, e.g. prostitutes. Correspondingly, they were more willing to accept blood from MSM than from other risk populations. MSM were also considered appropriate donors. Interestingly, prior knowledge about the exclusion of MSM appeared to be the strongest predictor for not accepting blood from MSM or a more stringent attitude on MSM exclusion. Receiving information on reasons for exclusion shifted opinions towards more stringency. Nevertheless, most people think that exceptions for MSM should be made under certain circumstances. This study identified several demographic factors associated with opinions concerning the exclusion of MSM for blood donation and the potential to change opinions after receiving information, e.g. age or socio-economic status. DISCUSSION: Blood collecting services can gain understanding from the general public about their exclusion policies by providing clear information. Communication efforts targeting specific audiences in function of their knowledge and likeliness to change their opinion, might improve the effectiveness of information campaigns.
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions save lives, but carry the risk of causing transfusion-transmitted diseases. This risk is limited by strict donor selection criteria, the most controversial being the exclusion of men who had sex with men (MSM). This cross-sectional study investigated knowledge and beliefs of the general public concerning donor exclusion criteria, with emphasis on MSM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A representative sample of the population of Flanders, Belgium was questioned using a web-based questionnaire. The effect of additional information on people's opinions was tested. RESULTS:People were less aware of the exclusion of MSM than of other risk populations, e.g. prostitutes. Correspondingly, they were more willing to accept blood from MSM than from other risk populations. MSM were also considered appropriate donors. Interestingly, prior knowledge about the exclusion of MSM appeared to be the strongest predictor for not accepting blood from MSM or a more stringent attitude on MSM exclusion. Receiving information on reasons for exclusion shifted opinions towards more stringency. Nevertheless, most people think that exceptions for MSM should be made under certain circumstances. This study identified several demographic factors associated with opinions concerning the exclusion of MSM for blood donation and the potential to change opinions after receiving information, e.g. age or socio-economic status. DISCUSSION: Blood collecting services can gain understanding from the general public about their exclusion policies by providing clear information. Communication efforts targeting specific audiences in function of their knowledge and likeliness to change their opinion, might improve the effectiveness of information campaigns.
Authors: R J Benjamin; C Bianco; M Goldman; C R Seed; H Yang; J Lee; A J Keller; S Wendel; S Biagini; J Murray; D V Devine; Y Zhu; P Turek; F M Moftah; R Kullaste; J Pillonel; B Danic; F Bigey; G Folléa; E Seifried; M M Mueller; C K Lin; R N Makroo; G Grazzini; S Pupella; C Velati; K Tadokoro; A Bravo Lindoro; A D'Artote González; V T Giner; P Flanagan; R W Olaussen; M Letowska; A Rosiek; R Poglod; E Zhiburt; P Mali; P Rozman; S Gulube; E Castro Izaguirre; B Ekermo; S M Barnes; L McLaughlin; A F Eder; S Panzer; H W Reesink Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.144
Authors: Darlene Taylor; Monica Durigon; Heather Davis; Chris Archibald; Bernhard Konrad; Daniel Coombs; Mark Gilbert; Darrel Cook; Mel Krajden; Tom Wong; Gina Ogilvie Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Walter Liszewski; Jordan Becerril; Christopher Terndrup; Nathan West; Bridget C Lavin; Danny Schieffler; Nicholas Van Sickels Journal: Transfusion Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Brian Custer; Nicolas Sheon; Bob Siedle-Khan; Lance Pollack; Bryan Spencer; Walter Bialkowski; Pam D'Andrea; Marian Sullivan; Simone Glynn; Alan Williams Journal: Transfusion Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: M Reuel Friedman; Chongyi Wei; Mary Lou Klem; Anthony J Silvestre; Nina Markovic; Ron Stall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240