Saving lives, maintaining safety, and science-based policy: qualitative interview findings from the Blood Donation Rules Opinion Study (Blood DROPS)

How do we forecast tomorrow's transfusion: Infectious safety?

Continuous improvement has led to a very high degree of microbial safety of transfusion. Four issues are likely to impact the future of this safety. There will be further advances in the efficacy and efficiency of donation testing and pathogen reduction, increasing safety and hopefully eliminating unnecessary procedures. While system failures have been essentially eliminated, there will be ongoing, unpredictable issues that are inevitable. Emerging infections are likely the greatest concern and will continue, although advances in science and technology will permit increasingly rapid responses to outbreaks. Finally, the practice of transfusion may eventually impact safety as usage of blood is reduced and perhaps as alternatives to conventional blood components are developed.

Staff perspectives on barriers and enablers to implementing alternative source plasma eligibility criteria for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

Canadian Blood Services introduced new eligibility criteria that allows some sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to donate source plasma, marking a significant change from time-based deferral criteria. We aimed to identify potential barriers and enablers to implementing the new criteria from the perspective of donor center staff.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted Theoretical Domains Framework-informed interviews with staff from two source plasma donation centers in Canada.

RESULTS

We completed 28 interviews between June 2020 and April 2021. Three themes representing eight domains captured key tensions. Valuing inclusive eligibility criteria: staff support inclusive criteria; many were concerned the new criteria remained discriminatory. Investing in positive donor experiences: staff wished to foster positive donor experiences; however, they worried gbMSM donors would express anger and disappointment regarding the new criteria, staff would experience unease over using stigmatizing criteria and convey nonverbal cues of discomfort, and recurring plasma donors may behave inappropriately. Supporting education, training, and transparency of eligibility criteria: participants believed providing in-person training (i.e., to explain criteria rationale, address discomfort, practice responding to donor questions) and ensuring donors and the public were well-informed of the upcoming changes would improve implementation.

DISCUSSION

Participant views emphasize the importance of supporting staff through training and transparent communication to optimize the delivery of world-class equitable care for a new cohort of donors who have previously been excluded from plasma donation. Findings inform which staff supports to consider to improve implementation as policies continue to shift internationally.

Directed Donation: Special Considerations and Review for Contemporary Clinical Practices

Background: Directed blood donation is defined as the donation of blood or its components for the purpose of transfusion into a specified individual. Directed blood donation holds historic significance, and although practices as of 2021 encourage voluntary, nonrenumerated blood donations, public interest in directed donation remains. Requests to discuss the risks and benefits of directed donations are a common inquiry for transfusion medicine, transplant, and hematology/oncology professionals. This narrative review discusses the history of directed donation and summarizes directed donation considerations in the context of modern transfusion practices. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed for published literature on the topic of directed blood donation and gathered information about its benefits and potential harms with respect to the variety of products used in transfusion medicine. Results: The drawbacks of directed donation include transfusion-transmitted infection risk, alloimmunization risk, increased transfusion-associated graft vs host disease risk, decreased expediency in treatment, and increased administrative burdens. However, a role remains for directed blood donation in specific patient populations, such as individuals with rare blood types or immunoglobulin A deficiencies, because of the difficulties in finding compatible blood for transfusion. Conclusion: Clinicians should consider the risks and benefits when discussing directed blood donations with patients and family members.

Evaluating blood donor experiences and barriers/facilitators to blood donation in the United States using YouTube video content

BACKGROUND

Understanding donor perception of the blood donation experience is central to maintaining an adequate blood supply. Studies that use questionnaires to assess barriers/facilitators to donation may be influenced by response bias. To address this, we conducted an innovative study integrating quantitative informatic techniques with qualitative data analysis of YouTube video content to explore donor experiences and barriers and facilitators to whole blood donation.

METHODS

Sampling of YouTube videos was conducted using search parameters for identifying relevant videos, based on donors' language used to describe their whole blood donation experiences (e.g., blood donation, blood donor, donated blood, gave/give blood). We eliminated duplicate videos; filtered out non-English videos, those made outside the United States, and those with no transcripts; and restricted the time period during which videos were posted from 2015 to 2019. Search parameters were fed into a Python script, which downloaded video transcripts for all search results. The final sample was 102 noncommercial and 34 commercial transcripts. The subsequent transcriptions were uploaded into qualitative analysis software and coded two coders. A third coder randomly selected transcripts to review to ensure consistency.

RESULTS

Barriers to whole blood donation include having prior negative experiences with donation and donation-related fear. Facilitators included altruism, having a personal connection to donation, donation center incentives, and positive experiences with blood center staff.

CONCLUSION

Themes identified in this study were similar to those in the existing literature. This suggests that current questionnaires to address barriers/facilitators to donation are unlikely to be meaningfully impacted by response bias.

Barriers and enablers to source plasma donation by gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men under revised eligibility criteria: protocol for a multiple stakeholder feasibility study

Background

Blood donation policy in Canada for gay, bisexual and other men who have had sex with men (gbMSM) has changed progressively in the last decade from indefinite deferral to 3-month deferral from last male-to-male sex. Driven by safety data and overseen by the national regulator, more inclusive policies continue to redress the disparity in donation for gbMSM. At the same time, the need for source plasma to prepare fractionated blood products is growing worldwide. The collection and processing of source plasma ensures greater safety compared to whole blood donation with respect to transfusion-transmitted infection. This greater safety offers an opportunity to evolve policies for gbMSM from time-based to behaviour-based deferral using revised eligibility criteria. However, changing policies does not in itself necessarily guarantee that gbMSM will donate or that staff in donor clinics are ready to support them to do so. In anticipation of a move to behaviour-based donation screening for gbMSM in Canada, we aim to assess the acceptability of and perceived barriers and enablers to source plasma donation using revised screening criteria for gbMSM among key stakeholders to inform policy implementation strategies.

Methods

This mixed-methods feasibility study will involve gbMSM and donor centre staff to understand modifiable barriers to implementing more inclusive eligibility criteria. Key informant interviews and surveys will be rooted in the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify modifiable factors associated with source plasma donation motives in gbMSM and training needs in donation centre staff. We will use an integrated knowledge translation approach involving a partnership between researchers, the national blood operator and gbMSM, situating knowledge users as key research team members to ensure their perspectives inform all aspects of the research.

Discussion

Our integrated knowledge translation approach will provide a more comprehensive and collaborative understanding of blood operator and gbMSM needs while accelerating the implementation of study findings. Given the historical backdrop of the decades of exclusion of sexually active gbMSM from blood donation, this study has the potential not only to inform a process and policy for gbMSM to donate source plasma, a blood product, but also offers opportunities for new relationships between these knowledge users.

Noncompliance to blood donor selection criteria by men who have sex with men - Complidon 2017, France

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In France, blood donation deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) was reduced from permanent to 12 months in July 2016. Assessing noncompliance (rate and reasons) with this criterion is important to maintain a high level of viral safety in blood products.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous online survey (Complidon) of a sample of blood donors was conducted in 2017. Data were post-stratified to be representative of all those who donated blood between July 2016 and December 2017. A multivariable analysis was performed to assess factors associated with noncompliance.

RESULTS

Among male donors, 0·73% [95% CI: 0·63-0·83] reported having sex with men in the 12 months preceding their donation. Factors associated with noncompliance were as follows: young age, a low educational level, concerns about privacy, and better knowledge of donor selection criteria and the window period than compliant men. More than half of noncompliant MSM donors (57·6% [95% CI: 50·6-64·3]) felt that sexual orientation should not be a criterion for donation, 47·2% [95% CI: 40·4-54·0] did not disclose their male-to-male sexual relations in order to avoid being excluded from donating, 40·5% [95% CI: 34·0-47·4] reported using condoms and 21·8% [95% CI: 16·7-27·9] had the same male partner for at least 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Complidon showed that compliance with blood donation criteria in MSM was high, but not optimal, especially among younger men. HIV residual risk did not increase after the implementation of 12-month deferral. Data from Complidon helped French policymakers to assess the additional HIV risk posed by increased access to blood donation for MSM.

'One step closer': Acceptability of a programme of plasma donation for fractionation from men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In Canada, Héma-Québec is considering the possibility of allowing men who have sex with men (MSM) to donate plasma for fractionation combined with a mandatory quarantine period. This study aims to assess the acceptability and operational feasibility of the programme in the targeted population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven focus groups with MSM (N = 47) were conducted in Montréal, regarding their beliefs underlying attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control relating to intention to participate in a programme of plasma donation for fractionation. A theoretical thematic content analysis was realized.

RESULTS

Participants brought up benefits of the programme. Some are altruistic (help others, save lives, contribute as citizens), while others are linked to what it could bring to their community (progress, opportunity to include MSM in blood donation programmes, acknowledgement of MSM's contributions to the well-being of others). However, even if the programme is in accordance with their altruistic values, it clashes with their values of equality and social justice. Many disadvantages were raised (discrimination and stigmatization of MSM, the fact that their blood is presented as being not as good as the blood of others). Facilitating factors and barriers to participation were put forward in terms of programme characteristics and sites where donations would be made.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest some interest in the programme of plasma donation for fractionation, but this is significantly tempered by the fact that differential treatment for MSM would continue and that their demands regarding access to whole blood donation are still unmet.

Blood donation deferral policies among men who have sex with men in Brazil

Reevaluation of the deferral from voluntary blood donation by men who have sex with men (MSM) is being discussed in several countries, motivated by the need to ensure a blood supply free from transfusion-transmissible infections (e.g., HIV, syphilis). Policies being considered include: permanent exclusion for any male-male sexual encounter, temporary deferral (3 months, 12 months, 5 years) from the last encounter, or specifying behaviors that differentiate MSM at high risk from those at low risk. Current Brazilian regulations defer MSM from blood donation for 12-months after the last male-male sexual encounter. Broad epidemiological evidence indicates that many MSM are at increased risk for HIV in the present era, and few data exist to distinguish which men are likely to be in the immunological window for detection of these infections. A multicenter study developed in Brazil demonstrated that the history of male-male sex was the most strongly associated with being an HIV-positive blood donor. Meanwhile, the blanket deferral of MSM from blood donation has generated considerable controversy. Rejection of the deferral policies stems in part from perspectives defending human rights, promoting equality and citizenship, and alleging bias and discrimination. The objective of this report is to discuss the current situation of blood donation among MSM in Brazil. We highlight the lack of evidence for a true risk profile for male-male sex in the context of blood donation upon which to base sound policy. We recommend research to establish effective and acceptable criteria for blood donation by MSM and other blood donors.

Blood Donation, Sexual Practices, and Self-Perceived Risk for HIV in the United States Among Young Adult Men Who Have Sex With Men

OBJECTIVES

In the United States, all men who have sex with men (MSM) were banned from donating blood from 1985 through 2015. In 2016, the guideline was amended such that men who had sexual contact with other men within the previous 12 months could not donate blood. We aimed to identify blood donation practices and their relationship with HIV risk and testing among young adult MSM (YMSM) at risk for having HIV.

METHODS

In 2014, we recruited HIV-negative non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white YMSM aged 18-24 from across the United States through social media platforms to complete an online survey. Among these YMSM who previously donated blood, we conducted a secondary analysis examining the relationship between having donated blood within the past 12 months and sexual risk behavior from recent condomless anal intercourse (CAI), HIV testing, and self-perceived risk of having an undiagnosed HIV infection.

RESULTS

Of the 2261 YMSM surveyed, 1104 (48.8%) had ever previously donated blood and 305 (13.5%) had donated blood within the past 12 months. Of the 305 blood donors, 50 (16.4%) had ever had CAI before their most recent blood donation. Among YMSM who donated blood, past-12-month blood donation was more likely among YMSM who never had CAI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.73) than among YMSM who had CAI and more likely among YMSM who believed it was not possible at all that they had an undiagnosed HIV infection (aOR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.16) than among YMSM who believed there was any possibility of having an undiagnosed HIV infection; it was not related to past-12-month HIV testing.

CONCLUSIONS

YMSM donated blood frequently, suggesting that the deferral process in place did not prevent YMSM from donating blood. The current donor screening process should be reconsidered if it is to prevent YMSM from donating blood. Future research could identify screening questions that permit YMSM with a low risk of HIV infection to donate blood while maintaining the safety of the blood supply.

Transition to a 1-year deferral for male blood donors who report sexual contact with men: staff perspectives at one blood collection organization

BACKGROUND

Front-line staff at blood collection organizations (BCOs) play important roles in keeping the blood supply safe, yet research on their professional practice and perspectives on training needs is sparse. This qualitative study explored these topics with regard to the then-impending change in donor eligibility for men reporting sex with another man (MSM).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Semistructured, individual interviews with BCO staff (n = 13) in Northern California covered experiences of and opinions on indefinite deferral, the revised 1-year deferral, and anticipated potential challenges arising from the new policy. Transcripts were thematically coded, using deductive and inductive approaches. Analysis identified recurrent and divergent themes.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported strong values of professionalism and respect for donors and supported the change to a 1-year deferral for MSM donors. Nonetheless, nearly all voiced the need for more in-depth training to maximize the likelihood of successful implementation. Specific recommendations included the use of role-play, provision of science-based talking points or FAQs, and empathy for donors and staff.

CONCLUSION

More than the usual training may be required to help BCO staff feel prepared to educate the public about changes to MSM-related deferrals and communicate effectively with donors about potentially deferrable behavior. Overall, these findings suggest that before future policy changes, BCO staff's opinions about and role in implementing new donor eligibility screening procedures merit consideration.

Blood donation history and eligibility assessment in a community-based sample of men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration changed the regulation from a permanent deferral from donation for men who have sex with men (MSM) to a 1-year deferral since last sexual contact. It is unknown what proportions of MSM try to donate and if they would be willing to answer individual risk-based questions to assess their current eligibility.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The National HIV Behavioral Surveillance surveys periodically measure human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence and risk behaviors among MSM using a venue-based, time-location sampling method. In the 2014 cycle, that is, before the policy change, investigators in San Francisco and New Orleans added questions about blood donation. Questions inquired into three domains: donation history, policy awareness, and knowledge about HIV testing of donations.

RESULTS

There were 404 and 557 respondents in San Francisco and New Orleans, respectively. Nearly one in three MSM in San Francisco (27.4%) and New Orleans (31.4%) tried to donate after their first MSM contact. A majority (63.1% in San Francisco, 58.8% in New Orleans) somewhat or strongly agreed that they would be willing to be asked detailed questions for donation eligibility assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of MSM who reported trying to donate was similar in the two cities. However, a substantial proportion did not agree to be asked more detailed risk behavior questions to assess eligibility. In these two geographic locations, prominent regional differences were not evident.

Donor deferral policies for men who have sex with men: where are we today?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review summarizes recent publications on the contentious issue of donor deferral criterion for men who have sex with men (MSM).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies from the United States and China demonstrated that MSM is still a frequent risk factor for HIV-positive donors. Noncompliance is an important factor in the overall risk of HIV transmission but does not appear to be affected by the length of the deferral period. A major US study found a 2.6% noncompliance rate with the current indefinite deferral for MSM; similar or lower rates were found in other jurisdictions with shorter deferral periods. Several countries have had a defined deferral period of 1 year or 5 years in place long enough to determine that increases in HIV-positive cases predicted by modeling studies did not actually occur, suggesting that the assumptions made in these models are overly conservative.

SUMMARY

In summary, MSM eligibility policies are slowly changing around the world, with the US FDA now permitting a 1-year deferral. Transparency, involvement of stakeholders, and careful evaluation of risk and societal benefit should be part of future policy discussions on this issue.

Context and social perceptions of blood donation in donors found positive for human immunodeficiency virus in France

BACKGROUND

In France, information collected during postdonation interviews showed that a majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected donors were not eligible to donate as per donor selection criteria. In the interest of blood safety, this study aimed to explore the mechanisms of noncompliance with blood donor selection criteria, notably the permanent deferral of men who have sex with men (MSM).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 32 blood donors found positive for HIV between mid-2011 and 2014. Topics such as the experience and motivations for donating blood, understanding of selection criteria, sexual risk management, and opinions on donor selection were discussed. Transcripts were analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

More than 50% of study participants were noncompliant with donor selection criteria. Reasons for nondisclosure of risk factors in the predonation questionnaire or the predonation interview included stigma, test-seeking motivations, symbolic attachment to blood donation, and context of donation. Compliance to donor criteria was seen as secondary by donors who reaped personal benefits from the symbolism of their donation. Donors lacked self-reflexivity in their assessment of risky sexual behavior. The "window period" and the underlying epidemiologic arguments for donor selection criteria were poorly understood. Nearly all participants disapproved of the permanent ban on blood donations from MSM.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the need for more communication on the epidemiologic basis for donor selection criteria and on the window period to facilitate donor compliance. These findings have already advanced improvements to predonation documents, in a larger context of 2016 donor selection criteria revision.

Transfusion practices and infectious risks

Transfusion-transmitted infections remain among the most-feared complications of allogeneic blood transfusion. Thanks to several strategies including donor screening and deferral, blood testing and pathogen inactivation, their risks have reached all-time low levels, particularly in developed nations. Nonetheless, new and emerging infections remain a threat that is likely to exacerbate in the coming years with continued globalization and climate change. More effective strategies of pathogen inactivation and more vigilant horizon screening are hoped to abate the risk. Additionally, allogeneic transfusion has repeatedly been shown to be associated with worsening of outcomes in patients, including the documented increased risk of infections (often nosocomial) in recipients of transfusions. The underlying mechanism is likely to be related to immunosuppressive effects of allogeneic blood, iron content, and bacterial contamination. This issue is best addressed by more judicious and evidence-based use of allogeneic blood components to ensure the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

Cognitive evaluation of the AABB Uniform Donor History Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

This article reports key findings of an evaluation of the AABB Uniform Donor History Questionnaire (a self-administered form completed before blood donation). The purpose of the study was to examine how respondents understand the questions and assess the nature of inaccurate responses. Another goal was to determine whether men who have sex with men (MSM) interpreted questions differently from non-MSM and whether questions were interpreted differently in various regions of the country.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Cognitive interviewing was used for the study. This is a qualitative method that investigates how survey questions perform. It consists of semistructured interviews that explore whether respondents understand questions as intended and whether they can provide accurate answers. A total of 166 interviews were conducted.

RESULTS

Respondents had an overwhelmingly similar understanding of the purpose of the questionnaire as assessing the safety of their blood for donation. This understanding framed respondents' interpretations such that each question was understood as asking the same thing; that is, "Is my blood safe to donate?" This interpretation did not vary among MSM versus non-MSM or by region.

CONCLUSION

Respondents understood the questionnaire as assessing the safety of their blood. This interpretation served as the backdrop for the question-response process for each individual question. Specifically, rationale for answers was framed as much or more by the questionnaire's general purpose as by the specific topic of individual questions. This pattern of interpretation was the key factor responsible for both false-positive and false-negative response errors and did not vary by demographic, including in MSM.

Impact of a 5-year deferral from blood donation for men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

The deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) changed from a permanent deferral since 1977 to a 5-year deferral on July 22, 2013, in Canada. We assessed the impact on safety and adequacy of the blood supply at Canadian Blood Services.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) rates were monitored from January 1, 2010, to July 21, 2015. Risk factors were assessed in notification interviews. Anonymous online surveys of male whole blood donors assessed compliance before and after implementation.

RESULTS

HIV rates were 0.2, 0.5, and 0.51 per 100,000 donations in 2010 to 2012; they were 0.54 and 0.22 in the first and second years after implementation (p = 0.8). Of four male HIV-positive donors after implementation, three denied risk factors and one knew he had HIV. Before implementation 9669 of 19,437 (49.7%) donors participated in the survey, and after implementation, 6881 of 18,934 (36.3%). Before implementation 0.67% of male donors were noncompliant, and after implementation, 0.44%. There was no difference before versus after implementation in male donors with MSM history in the past 5 years (0.37% vs. 0.43%, p = 0.54). After implementation, eligible MSM donors increased (0.42% vs. 0.66%, p = 0.04), with approximately 500 more donors in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a 5-year deferral for MSM had no impact on HIV rates in 2 years of postimplementation monitoring. Donor compliance improved after implementation due to MSM donors who were previously ineligible becoming eligible. There was no change in the percentage of male donors with recent male partners but there was a modest increase in eligible MSM in the donor pool.