ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2018
Importance of information provision in the acceptance of blood donation criteria by the general public in Belgium.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood transfusions save lives, but carry the risk of causing transfusion-transmitted diseases. This risk is limited by strict donor selection criteria, the most controversial being the exclusion of men who had sex with men (MSM). This cross-sectional study investigated knowledge and beliefs of the general public concerning donor exclusion criteria, with emphasis on MSM. MATERIALS AND
methodsA representative sample of the population of Flanders, Belgium was questioned using a web-based questionnaire. The effect of additional information on people's opinions was tested.
resultsPeople were less aware of the exclusion of MSM than of other risk populations, e.g. prostitutes. Correspondingly, they were more willing to accept blood from MSM than from other risk populations. MSM were also considered appropriate donors. Interestingly, prior knowledge about the exclusion of MSM appeared to be the strongest predictor for not accepting blood from MSM or a more stringent attitude on MSM exclusion. Receiving information on reasons for exclusion shifted opinions towards more stringency. Nevertheless, most people think that exceptions for MSM should be made under certain circumstances. This study identified several demographic factors associated with opinions concerning the exclusion of MSM for blood donation and the potential to change opinions after receiving information, e.g. age or socio-economic status. DISCUSSION: Blood collecting services can gain understanding from the general public about their exclusion policies by providing clear information. Communication efforts targeting specific audiences in function of their knowledge and likeliness to change their opinion, might improve the effectiveness of information campaigns.
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.