Non-compliance to infectious disease deferral criteria among Hong Kong's blood donors

Completing the Donor History Questionnaire before the Donation Visit Can Improve Blood Safety

Background and Objectives

In Germany, the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) is traditionally filled in at the donation center to avoid any influence of others. Since March 2020, it has been suggested to donors to answer the DHQ already at home and to call if they have any concerns to reduce the number of ineligible donors on-site during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and Methods

We evaluated the rate of ineligible donors before and after March 2020. Additionally, an anonymous online survey asking for the donors' attitude towards the DHQ was performed. It included questions on whether and for what reason the DHQ had been answered incorrectly in the past.

Results

The rate of ineligible donors decreased by 27% (from 7.1% to 5.2%). In total, 5,556 of 10,252 invited donors completed the survey (54.2%). 88.6% reported either going through the DHQ at home or knowing all questions from their previous donations. 444 donors (8.0%) had at least once postponed a donation after reading the DHQ at home. 68 donors (1.2%) admitted having intentionally provided false answers in the past (9 at home, 43 on-site, 14 both, 2 unknown). Not wanting to be rejected once arriving at the donation center was an important motivation for 42% of donors answering incorrectly on-site. Details on 46 incorrect answers were provided: only 17 had no influence on donor eligibility or product quality. In 5 cases, some blood products might have had impaired quality. Truthful answers to 17 questions would have led to deferral, mostly due to increased risk for unrecognized viral infections transmitted by sexual contacts. For a further 7 questions, there was insufficient information available to determine possible consequences. Asked about their general opinion, 753 (13.6%) of all donors estimated the risk of incorrect answers being greater on-site, while 239 (4.3%) presumed an increased risk at home.

Conclusion

Answering the DHQ prior to a donation visit prevented ineligible donors from visiting the donation center. Furthermore, it might improve honesty, as the discomfort of being deferred after arriving at the donation center was an important reason to answer incorrectly. Overall, there was no increased risk of donor or product safety, and potentially even a benefit.

Compliance and attitudes of blood donors following transitioning from permanent to 12-month deferral of men who have sex with men in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Blood safety hinges not just on the scientific rationale for deferral period but potential donors' compliance with the prevailing policy. This study aimed to investigate donors' awareness, attitudes and compliance with the two-phased policy implementation of time-limited deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Hong Kong.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three rounds of questionnaire survey were conducted between July 2017 and June 2019 covering the periods of pre-implementation (Round A), post-implementation without and with pre-donation questionnaire revision (Round B and C). Chi-square test and multivariable regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Of 3085 donors recruited, 968, 1036 and 1081 completed the surveys in Round A, B and C, respectively. The non-compliance rate of MSM remained stable at 0·6% (3/497), 0·4% (2/551) and 0·5% (3/587) among male donors in Round A, B and C, respectively. Two MSM donors from Round C complying with the prevailing policy were identified. About two-thirds (60·7%) of respondents from Round B and C were unaware of the policy change. Overall, over 80% were either neutral or positive about the change.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed a consistently low non-compliance rate of MSM over the three periods. The generally high level of acceptance of time-limited deferral among donors lends support to science-based policy development to protect blood safety. The identification of compliant MSM donors suggests that the 12-month deferral is effective and acceptable to MSM. With a deferral period far exceeding the window period, it is a step towards a more equitable policy.

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.

An Original Approach to Evaluating the Quality of Blood Donor Selection: Checking Donor Questionnaires and Analyzing Donor Deferral Rate

Blood donor selection is a cornerstone for blood transfusion safety, designed to safeguard the health of both donors and recipients. In the Service du Sang, Belgian Red Cross, French and German-speaking part of Belgium (SFS), health professionals (HPs) are allowed to interview donors on their own after formal qualification. This qualification is afterward evaluated by means of two complementary quality indicators: monitoring of donor health questionnaires (DHQs) and analysis of donor deferral rate. The study aims to evaluate the degree to which both quality indicators may be useful and appropriate tools to evaluate the quality of blood donor selection. An analysis performed on 2016 data showed that noncompliance detected by means of DHQ monitoring seems to be more frequent in HPs who conduct a low number of interviews compared to all HPs as a group (5.67 vs. 3.23%; p < 0.001). Deferral rates are also higher in HPs with a lower activity compared to HPs who interview more donors (14.80 vs. 13.00%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, statistically differences are observed between the type of blood donation venue in terms of the global deferral rate (for instance fixed site vs. schools: 11.9 vs. 19.5%; p < 0.001), and specific reasons for deferral (such as sexual risk behavior and travel in at-risk areas, the differences being highly significant between each category of blood donation venue; p < 0.001). Providing the HPs with feedback on these findings was an opportunity to draw their attention to some aspects of the selection process in order to improve it.