ArticleTransfusion2022
'Stay at home and limit contact': The impact of stay-at-home advice on the behavior of Australian donors aged 70 and over in the first year of the pandemic.
Article in Transfusion, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motives and barriers to blood donation among adults aged over 50 years: A qualitative analysis.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Rethinking the role of older donors in a sustainable blood supply.Transfusion · 2025Article
- 'Stay at home and limit contact': The impact of stay-at-home advice on the behavior of Australian donors aged 70 and over in the first year of the pandemic.Transfusion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian donors aged 70 and over were advised to temporarily stop donating. The aim of this research was to understand the factors associated with some of these donors continuing to donate despite the advice, and whether adherence to the advice had negative implications for donor retention. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsSurvey data from 2078 donors were analyzed to understand the factors associated with donating blood during the first 6 months of the pandemic, and the impact of following stay-at-home advice during the first 6 months of the pandemic on donor return 6-12 months into the pandemic. Panel data were used to gain an overview of donation behavior before, during, and after the initial phase of the pandemic.
resultsDonations by donors aged 70 and over decreased disproportionately to other age groups during the early stages of the pandemic. Sex, total donation count, awareness of stay-at-home advice from the Blood Collection Agency, the mode of receiving stay-at-home advice, donor risk perceptions and attitudes toward stay-at-home advice were associated with donation behavior in the first 6 months of the pandemic. Donors who did not donate in the first 6 months of the pandemic had lower odds of returning 6-12 months into the pandemic.
conclusionStay-at-home advice was partially successful in preventing older donors from donating; however, more tailored communication approaches may have prevented more donors from donating. Implementation of stay-at-home advice should be accompanied by strategies to prevent ongoing donor lapse in the medium- to long-term.
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.