ArticleTransfusion2018
Transition to a 1-year deferral for male blood donors who report sexual contact with men: staff perspectives at one blood collection organization.
Article in Transfusion, 2018. 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.
- 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
- 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
- Blood donation deferral policies among men who have sex with men in Brazil.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFront-line staff at blood collection organizations (BCOs) play important roles in keeping the blood supply safe, yet research on their professional practice and perspectives on training needs is sparse. This qualitative study explored these topics with regard to the then-impending change in donor eligibility for men reporting sex with another man (MSM). STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsSemistructured, individual interviews with BCO staff (n = 13) in Northern California covered experiences of and opinions on indefinite deferral, the revised 1-year deferral, and anticipated potential challenges arising from the new policy. Transcripts were thematically coded, using deductive and inductive approaches. Analysis identified recurrent and divergent themes.
resultsInterviewees reported strong values of professionalism and respect for donors and supported the change to a 1-year deferral for MSM donors. Nonetheless, nearly all voiced the need for more in-depth training to maximize the likelihood of successful implementation. Specific recommendations included the use of role-play, provision of science-based talking points or FAQs, and empathy for donors and staff.
conclusionMore than the usual training may be required to help BCO staff feel prepared to educate the public about changes to MSM-related deferrals and communicate effectively with donors about potentially deferrable behavior. Overall, these findings suggest that before future policy changes, BCO staff's opinions about and role in implementing new donor eligibility screening procedures merit consideration.
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.