BACKGROUND: The recent addition of a computerized donor deferral registry to American Red Cross blood donation procedures has enabled blood center staffs to identify, before donation, persons who attempt to donate despite previous deferral. The current study investigated reasons that deferred donors return to donate, despite having been notified that they are ineligible. STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: Anonymous mail surveys requesting demographic information, details of last donation or attempted donation, and assessments of incentives for donating were sent to 311 donors presenting inappropriately at blood drives and 849 matched controls in three American Red Cross regions between April and July 1996. RESULTS: Responses were received from a total of 113 deferred donors and 388 matched controls. Analysis of the 49 permanently deferred donors indicated that they were more likely than controls to donate blood to receive test results or to be awarded community service credit. Responses also revealed that some deferred donors may return to donate blood because of a misunderstanding of the deferral message or erroneous recruitment by blood center staff. CONCLUSION: There is a need before donation for the provision of educational materials regarding the window period of infection and for careful consideration of the use of incentives to attract donors to blood centers. It is also important to provide to donors a clear and consistent message regarding their test results and deferral status.
BACKGROUND: The recent addition of a computerized donor deferral registry to American Red Cross blood donation procedures has enabled blood center staffs to identify, before donation, persons who attempt to donate despite previous deferral. The current study investigated reasons that deferred donors return to donate, despite having been notified that they are ineligible. STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: Anonymous mail surveys requesting demographic information, details of last donation or attempted donation, and assessments of incentives for donating were sent to 311 donors presenting inappropriately at blood drives and 849 matched controls in three American Red Cross regions between April and July 1996. RESULTS: Responses were received from a total of 113 deferred donors and 388 matched controls. Analysis of the 49 permanently deferred donors indicated that they were more likely than controls to donate blood to receive test results or to be awarded community service credit. Responses also revealed that some deferred donors may return to donate blood because of a misunderstanding of the deferral message or erroneous recruitment by blood center staff. CONCLUSION: There is a need before donation for the provision of educational materials regarding the window period of infection and for careful consideration of the use of incentives to attract donors to blood centers. It is also important to provide to donors a clear and consistent message regarding their test results and deferral status.
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