A randomized controlled trial of a tablet‐based intervention to address predonation fears among high school donors

Advancing Understandings of Blood Donation Motivation and Behavior

In this review, we provide critical analysis of social science research into blood donation motivation and behavior. We first share an understanding of the existing literature and recommendations for future research collectively developed by members of the Working Group on Blood Donors and the Supply: Diversifying while Maintaining the Donor Pool, Donor Selection, and Optimizing Blood Availability and Safety, as part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's 2022 State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine symposium. Then, rather than aim for a comprehensive treatment, we review 4 newer manuscripts that exemplify aspects of the group's recommendations and report results from countries where the blood supply is based on voluntary, nonremunerated donations. From the substantial existing literature, we selected: (1) a study that employed motivational interviewing techniques, thematic analysis, and surveys to link donation motivations and barriers reported by diverse young donors in the United States to actual donation behavior over a year of subsequent eligibility; (2) a survey regarding donation motivations and barriers and monetary amounts associated with willingness to participate in whole blood, plasma, or platelet collection; (3) a survey-based assessment of various emotional states reported by donors at 2 time points during donation and the relationship between emotional experience and subsequent vasovagal reactions; and (4) an interpretive discourse analysis of blood collection agency messaging to donors and the public in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We close by noting several challenges posed by the structure of the United States blood system and the current funding environment to conducting rigorous research and translating findings into practice.

Evaluation of interventions to prevent vasovagal reactions among whole blood donors: rationale and design of a large cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) are the most common acute complications of blood donation. Responsible for substantial morbidity, they also reduce the likelihood of repeated donations and are disruptive and costly for blood services. Although blood establishments worldwide have adopted different strategies to prevent VVRs (including water loading and applied muscle tension [AMT]), robust evidence is limited. The Strategies to Improve Donor Experiences (STRIDES) trial aims to reliably assess the impact of four different interventions to prevent VVRs among blood donors.

METHODS

STRIDES is a cluster-randomised cross-over/stepped-wedge factorial trial of four interventions to reduce VVRs involving about 1.4 million whole blood donors enrolled from all 73 blood donation sites (mobile teams and donor centres) of National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in England. Each site ("cluster") has been randomly allocated to receive one or more interventions during a 36-month period, using principles of cross-over, stepped-wedge and factorial trial design to assign the sequence of interventions. Each of the four interventions is compared to NHSBT's current practices: (i) 500-ml isotonic drink before donation (vs current 500-ml plain water); (ii) 3-min rest on donation chair after donation (vs current 2 min); (iii) new modified AMT (vs current practice of AMT); and (iv) psychosocial intervention using preparatory materials (vs current practice of nothing). The primary outcome is the number of in-session VVRs with loss of consciousness (i.e. episodes involving loss of consciousness of any duration, with or without additional complications). Secondary outcomes include all in-session VVRs (i.e. with and without loss of consciousness), all delayed VVRs (i.e. those occurring after leaving the venue) and any in-session non-VVR adverse events or reactions.

DISCUSSION

The STRIDES trial should yield novel information about interventions, singly and in combination, for the prevention of VVRs, with the aim of generating policy-shaping evidence to help inform blood services to improve donor health, donor experience, and service efficiency.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 10412338. Registration date: October 24, 2019.

What would it take to convince you to donate? A survey study of the relationship between motivators, barriers, and payment for whole blood, plasma, and platelet donation

Background

With growing discussion about blood donor remuneration, the present study examined the level of payment that may be required to convince individuals to engage in whole blood, plasma, and platelet donations.

Study Design and Methods

Anonymous online surveys were completed by a college sample [n = 490; 76.9% female; Mean Age = 20.3 (SD = 4.9) years; 32.9% whole blood donors] and a ResearchMatch sample [n = 323; 70.6% female; Mean Age = 50.7 (SD = 16.6) years; 82.7% whole blood donors]. Level of payment needed to motivate whole blood, plasma, and platelet donation was examined as a function of donation history, sample, and gender. In addition, path analyses examined associations between donation motivators, barriers, and payment level.

Results

Across all types of donation, history of whole blood donation was related to a greater willingness to donate without payment. At the same time, however, sizeable portions of prior donors indicated that monetary payment would convince them to donate whole blood (24%), plasma (51%), or platelets (57%). Across all types of donation, donation‐related barriers (i.e., anxiety, fear) were indirectly related to higher payment levels via lower self‐efficacy and more negative donation attitudes. Donation‐related motivators (i.e., warm glow, regret, and altruism) were indirectly related to lower payment levels via higher self‐efficacy and more positive donation attitudes.

Conclusion

Despite reporting a strong commitment to nonremunerated blood donation, many respondents with and without a history of blood donation indicated that money would convince them to engage in whole blood, plasma, and platelet donation.

Fear is associated with attrition of first-time whole blood donors: A longitudinal examination of donor confidence and attitude as potential mediators

BACKGROUND

Elevated fear and anxiety regarding donation-related stimuli (e.g., needles, pain, blood, fainting) has been associated with reduced blood donor recruitment and retention. The present longitudinal study tests the notion that this inverse relationship may be accounted for by lower donation confidence and more negative donation attitudes among fearful first-time donors.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a sample of 1479 first-time whole blood donors [67.9% female; mean age = 19.3 (standard deviation (SD) = 2.5) years], path analyses were conducted to examine relationships among donor ratings of fear of blood draw and donation anxiety obtained approximately 1 week after donation, donation confidence and attitudes assessed approximately 6 weeks later, and donation attempts over the 14 months following the original donation.

RESULTS

Path analyses indicated that both fear of blood draws and donation anxiety were associated with fewer attempted donations, and that these effects were indirectly mediated by a combination of lower donor confidence and more negative donation attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Because retention of new blood donors is essential to maintain a healthy blood supply, the results of the present study suggest that first-time donors should be assessed for fear and anxiety so that appropriate strategies can be provided to address their concerns, bolster their confidence and attitudes, and ultimately promote their long-term retention.

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.

Improving the donation experience and reducing venipuncture pain by addressing fears among whole-blood and plasma donors

BACKGROUND

Fear of blood donation is implicated in vasovagal reactions, donor recruitment, and retention. This study examined the extent to which fear among donors is associated with various donor outcomes in an Australian sample, and whether fear can be addressed on-site to reduce adverse reactions and improve the donation experience.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Six hundred and sixty-four donors (age M = 33.4, SD = 12.7; 55% female) participated in a two-center, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomized controlled trial. Following donor registration and consent, whole-blood (n = 539) and plasma (n = 125) donors were assigned to one of four Conditions: control; fear assessment; fear assessment + brochure; fear assessment + brochure + tailored conversation focused on any self-reported fear and coping strategies. Post-donation questionnaires assessed the donors' experience including positive support, donor self-efficacy, anxiety, fear, venipuncture pain, and vasovagal reactions.

RESULTS

Fear among donors predicted higher venipuncture pain, post-donation anxiety, and vasovagal reactions and remained significant after controlling for other established predictors (i.e., total estimated blood volume, age, sex, and donation experience). Mediational analyses showed that exposure to brochures (with or without the tailored conversation) was associated with less pain, with this effect mediated by donor perceptions of more positive support. Venipuncture pain was also associated with vasovagal reactions, reduced likelihood of return within 6 months, and less satisfaction with the donation experience.

CONCLUSION

The current results underline the importance of interventions to address fear among both whole-blood and plasma donors to secure the safety and well-being of donors and the blood supply.

Donation related fears predict vasovagal reactions and donor attrition among high school donors

BACKGROUND

This longitudinal study of high school whole blood donors examined relationships among donation-related fears assessed prior to donation, vasovagal reactions to donation, and the proportion of donors who attempted another donation over the subsequent 60 weeks.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Data regarding vasovagal reactions and attempted donation were obtained from donor records of 530 female and 342 male high school donors who answered questions about five types of fear (ie, of blood draw, needles, seeing blood, feeling pain, or fainting) prior to their index donation.

RESULTS

Each type of fear was associated with an increased risk of vasovagal reactions (all P < .001) and a smaller percentage of attempted donations was seen among those who reported at least one type of fear (53%) as compared to those who did not report any fear (62.1%); P = .022; β = -0.374, OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94. Path analyses of the relationships among fear, vasovagal reaction, and attempted donation revealed significant indirect effects for each type of fear. Specifically, donors who reported fear were at increased odds of experiencing a vasovagal reaction, which, in turn, was associated with decreased odds of attempting a repeat donation.

CONCLUSION

Donation-related fears are associated with reduced donor return rates, and this effect is mediated through an increased risk for vasovagal reactions. For both practical and ethical reasons, blood collectors are encouraged to identify and intervene with fearful donors to reduce the likelihood of negative donation-related symptoms and enhance donor retention.