Donating blood for research: a potential method for enhancing customer satisfaction of permanently deferred blood donors

"Why don't you want my poop?" Willing stool donor's experiences of being ineligible to donate intestinal microbiota

BACKGROUND

Blood collection agencies (BCAs) hosting stool (fecal or poo) donor programs report high rates of donor deferral. However, the impact of deferral on willing donors, in terms of personal well-being and future engagement with BCAs, remains unexplored. Accordingly, we surveyed those attempting to donate intestinal microbiota about their experience of being ineligible.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 196 potential stool donors from Australia's BCA (>90% blood/blood product donors) completed the first stage of eligibility screening and then an online survey once notified of their ineligibility. Respondents reported motives for donating, perceptions of screening and improvements needed, experience of being told they are ineligible, and their feelings about this.

RESULTS

Over 80% of participants were ineligible to donate. Of those ineligible, 58% did not know why they were ineligible resulting in potentially future eligible donors being permanently lost. Motives (>5%) included helping others, being a human substance donor, understanding benefits, curiosity/novelty, and helping science/research. Participants identified they needed clear and timely information during screening and a specific reason for their ineligibility. Participants commonly experienced disappointment, confusion, and calm in response to being ineligible.

DISCUSSION

BCAs need strategies to mitigate the disappointment of ineligible donors, maintain satisfaction with BCAs, and preserve donor identity since many ineligible donors give multiple human substances. BCAs should provide more information about eligibility criteria during early screening stages to reduce disappointment and give personalized information about ineligibility to resolve the confusion. Offering alternative opportunities to give may reduce disappointment and increase ineligible donor engagement.

Reinduction of the Temporarily Deferred Donors for Laying the Foundation of Safe and Sustainable Blood Supplies: A Review in the Indian Context

Temporarily deferred donors are a forgotten pool of potential blood source. When dealt appropriately, they can easily be inducted back to the main stream pool of voluntary donors. Although there are multiple studies from India on the deferral rates and patterns; not much has been done with respect to the follow up of these donors and active efforts to bring them back to donate blood. In this narrative review, we discuss the impact of temporary deferral, factors affecting the return and appropriate strategies to improve the return rate of these donors.

In the Mood for a Blood Donation? Pilot Study about Momentary Mood, Satisfaction, and Return Behavior in Deferred First-Time Donors

Introduction

To maintain a sufficient donor pool, deferred first-time donors (FTD) should be motivated to return for blood donation. This pilot study investigates how deferral affects momentary mood, satisfaction with the donation process, and subsequent return behavior to examine their potential for motivating (deferred) FTD.

Methods

All of the subjects (n = 96) completed a first questionnaire (A1) before pre-donation assessment. Deferred FTD (n = 22) were asked to complete a second questionnaire (A2) immediately after deferral, while non-deferred FTD (n = 74) filled in the second questionnaire (A3) after blood donation. The impact of deferral, momentary mood, and satisfaction with the donation process on return behavior within 12 months was tested by calculating two path analyses, controlling for sex and age.

Results

Mood (p < 0.001) and satisfaction with social aspects of the donation process (p = 0.01) were decreased after deferral. Deferred FTD were less likely than non-deferred FTD to return to the blood donation center within 12 months (60.8 vs. 36.4%; p = 0.043). However, path analyses revealed that deferral effects on mood and satisfaction were not connected to return behavior. Instead, age had a significant influence on return behavior (p < 0.05) such that, overall, non-returning FTD were older than returning FTD, regardless of their deferral status.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that mood and satisfaction with the donation process are directly affected by deferral but not clearly responsible for low return rates. It seems promising to embed these variables in established health behavior models in further studies to increase the return rates of deferred FTD.