Evaluation and improvement of blood donor educational materials: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Research status of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer patients

The latest global cancer burden data released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization in 2020 shows that there were 19.29 million new cancer cases worldwide, with 4.57 million in China, ranking first. The number of cancer survivors is increasing, with a 5-year survival rate exceeding 85%, but there are emotional disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can improve negative emotions and has significant effects on patients. However, there is a limited number of physicians and high costs, so internet interventions have become a solution. The feasibility of web-based interventions for breast cancer patients has been proven. Research on internet-delivered CBT is also increasing. The purpose of this study was to review the concept of web-based CBT and its application status in cancer survivors, in order to provide relevant intervention for scholars and provide reference and supplement for patients to provide psychological therapy.

Undisclosed Sexual Risk Exposures: Results of a Nationwide Compliance Study among Whole Blood Donors in Germany

Background

Undisclosed sexual infection risks are the main reasons for transfusion transmissible infections in German blood donors that have qualified for donation by donor health interviews and questionnaires. Until now, data about compliance with deferral criteria were only available from post-donation interviews with infected donors, and information about the proportion of donors which did not disclose (sexual) risks at the donor health questionnaire was not available.

Methods

A prospective nationwide anonymous online survey was conducted to investigate compliance of whole blood donors with deferral criteria for sexual infection risks. Twenty-one blood establishments which represent 80% of the regular whole blood-donor population invited all donors which donated blood during an 8-week period between January and March 2020.

Results

14,882 participants completed the questionnaire. A relevant proportion of non-compliance was shown (3.0%, 95% CI: 2.7-3.3%) - with male donors being non-compliant significantly more frequently than females (3.5% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001). A quarter of the non-compliant men were MSM (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.7-1.1%). Non-compliance was strongly associated with the perception that questions about sexual risk exposures are too private. This is in line with the finding that a large proportion of donors (21%) refused to answer at least one question about sexual infection risks.

Conclusion

The presented data, collected for the first time, is suitable for assessing the impact of changes in the donor selection process. Donor's limited willingness to provide detailed information about sexual risk behaviour has to be kept in mind when further strategies for fair appraisal of individual sexual infection risks will be discussed.

Sexual risk behavior questions: Understanding and mitigating donor discomfort

Background

Blood operators are working to improve donor screening and eligibility for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM), and trans and nonbinary donors. Many consider screening all donors for specific sexual risk behaviors to be a more equitable approach that maintains the safety of the blood supply. Feasibility considerations with this change include ensuring donor understanding of additional sexual behavior questions and minimizing donor loss due to discomfort.

Study design and methods

Qualitative one‐on‐one interviews were conducted with Canadian whole blood and plasma donors (N = 40). A thematic analysis was conducted to assess participants' understandings of the questions, examine their comfort/discomfort, and identify strategies to mitigate donor discomfort.

Results

All participants understood what the sexual behavior questions were asking and thought the questions were appropriate. Themes related to comfort/discomfort include: their expectations of donor screening, social norms that they bring to donation, whether their answer felt like personal disclosure, knowing the reasons for the question, trusting confidentiality, confidence in knowing their sexual partner's behavior, and potential for the question to be discriminatory. Strategies to mitigate discomfort include: providing an explanation for the questions, forewarning donors of these questions, reducing ambiguity, and using a self‐administered questionnaire.

Conclusion

While many blood operators and regulators view the move to sexual behavior–based screening for all donors as a significant paradigmatic shift, donors may not perceive additional sexual behavior questions as a significant change to their donation experience. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to mitigate donor discomfort.