ArticleVox sanguinis2014
Knowledge of HIV testing and attitudes towards blood donation at three blood centres in Brazil.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recently acquired infection among HIV-seropositive donors in the US from 2010-2018.Transfusion · 2020Trial
- Test seeking: are healthcare professionals referring people to blood centers for infections marker testing?Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
- Comment to: Test seeking: are health care professionals referring people to the blood centers for infectious markers testing?Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing risk of HIV window period transmission requires understanding of donor knowledge and attitudes related to HIV and risk factors. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a survey of 7635 presenting blood donors at three Brazilian blood centres from 15 October through 20 November 2009. Participants completed a questionnaire on HIV knowledge and attitudes about blood donation. Six questions about blood testing and HIV were evaluated using maximum likelihood chi-square and logistic regression. Test seeking was classified in non-overlapping categories according to answers to one direct and two indirect questions.
resultsOverall, respondents were male (64%) repeat donors (67%) between 18 and 49 years old (91%). Nearly 60% believed blood centres use better HIV tests than other places; however, 42% were unaware of the HIV window period. Approximately 50% believed it was appropriate to donate to be tested for HIV, but 67% said it was not acceptable to donate with risk factors even if blood is tested. Logistic regression found that less education, Hemope-Recife blood centre, replacement, potential and self-disclosed test-seeking were associated with less HIV knowledge.
conclusionHIV knowledge related to blood safety remains low among Brazilian blood donors. A subset finds it appropriate to be tested at blood centres and may be unaware of the HIV window period. These donations may impose a significant risk to the safety of the blood supply. Decreasing test-seeking and changing beliefs about the appropriateness of individuals with behavioural risk factors donating blood could reduce the risk of transfusing an infectious unit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.