ArticleTransfusion2015
Saving lives, maintaining safety, and science-based policy: qualitative interview findings from the Blood Donation Rules Opinion Study (Blood DROPS).
Article in Transfusion, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Staff perspectives on barriers and enablers to implementing alternative source plasma eligibility criteria for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.Transfusion · 2022Article
- Evaluating blood donor experiences and barriers/facilitators to blood donation in the United States using YouTube video content.Transfusion · 2021Article
- Directed Donation: Special Considerations and Review for Contemporary Clinical Practices.Ochsner journal · 2021Review
- Barriers and enablers to source plasma donation by gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men under revised eligibility criteria: protocol for a multiple stakeholder feasibility study.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- 'One step closer': Acceptability of a programme of plasma donation for fractionation from men who have sex with men.Vox sanguinis · 2019Article
- Transition to a 1-year deferral for male blood donors who report sexual contact with men: staff perspectives at one blood collection organization.Transfusion · 2018Article
- Blood donation deferral policies among men who have sex with men in Brazil.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
- Blood Donation, Sexual Practices, and Self-Perceived Risk for HIV in the United States Among Young Adult Men Who Have Sex With Men.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndefinite deferral from donation for any man who discloses having had sex with another man even once since 1977 (MSM77) is the US FDA's standing policy. This qualitative component of the Blood Donation Rules and Opinion Study was designed to provide insight into the perceptions and practices of current or previous donors with MSM history. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsForty human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative MSM completed an online survey, indicating that they had donated blood and were willing to be interviewed. Semistructured, individual interviews with these key informants covered donation experience and motivations, perceptions of MSM77, policy change preferences, and possible impact of a change to a time-limited deferral. Transcripts were coded deductively and inductively, following a modified Grounded Theory approach. Analysis identified recurrent and divergent themes.
resultsNinety-five percent of participants endorsed modifying MSM77. Preferred deferral length ranged from none to 5 years; a common opinion was that a science-based deferral period would be less than 1 year. Other policy change recommendations included incorporating questions about specific HIV risk behaviors to the donor questionnaire for all potential donors. Interviewees recognized HIV infection rates are higher in MSM than the general US population, but participants considered themselves low-risk for HIV, donated blood "to save lives," and justified their recommendations as being more effective ways to identify donors at risk for HIV.
conclusionResults suggest that MSM donors are concerned with blood safety; they can be appealed to as such. Communications about a new deferral policy should include scientific explanations and acknowledge altruistic motivations of potential donors.
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.