Trial reportBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2017
The relative efficacy of three interventions to favour return to give blood.
Trial report in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to test the relative efficacy of action planning and reward distribution to promote retention of whole blood donors. MATERIALS AND
methodsA sample of 7,399 donors was randomised to one of three interventions: "action planning" (n=2,585); "reward" (n=2,397); and "thank you" (n=2,417). Participants in the action planning condition were invited to write the date of their next donation on a post-it note before taking it home at the end of the donation process. Participants in the "reward" condition were given an anti-theft credit card sleeve at the end of the donation process. The "thank you" intervention is the usual condition at the end of the process; it was considered the control condition. The dependent variable was the proportion of donors who registered to give blood at six months.
resultsOverall, 4,444 (60.06%) donors registered to give blood at six months. There were no differences between the three interventions in the proportions of donors who registered to give blood (d.f. 2, chi-square=3.72, p<0.15). However, gender modified the effect of the intervention (d.f. 2, chi-square=6.57, p<0.0375); more women registered in the "thank you" condition than in the other two. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that action planning and the distribution of a reward have no motivational effect on the return to give blood. Nonetheless, women appear to respond more negatively to these interventions at the end of the donation process.
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.