ArticleTransfusion2023
Prevalence of blood donation eligibility in Australia: A population survey.
Article in Transfusion, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk factors for vasovagal reactions in blood donors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Transfusion · 2025Pooled it
- Long-term forecasting of blood donations using time series of donation activity: Findings from seven blood establishments.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Blood donation criteria in Australia: Population knowledge, misperceptions, and impact on donation intent.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Donating blood in a team: Investigating social factors as predictors and outcomes of a positive team experience.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Understanding community perspectives for advancing inclusion of trans and gender-diverse people in blood donation in Australia.Vox sanguinis · 2025Article
- A virtual reality paradigm simulating blood donation serves as a platform to test interventions to promote donation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReliable estimates of the population proportion eligible to donate blood are needed by blood collection agencies to model the likely impact of changes in eligibility criteria and inform targeted population-level education, recruitment, and retention strategies. In Australia, the sole estimate was calculated 10+ years ago. With several subsequent changes to the eligibility criteria, an updated estimate is required. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional national population survey to estimate eligibility for blood donation. Respondents were aged 18+ and resident in Australia. Results were weighted to obtain a representative sample of the population.
resultsEstimated population prevalence of blood donation eligibility for those aged 18-74 was 57.3% (95% CI 55.3-59.3). The remaining 42.7% (95% CI 40.7-44.7) were either temporarily (25.3%, 95% CI 23.5-27.2) or permanently ineligible (17.4%, 95% CI 16.1-18.9). Of those eligible at the time of the survey, that is, with the UK geographic deferral for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease included, (52.9%, 95% CI 50.8-54.9), 14.2% (95% CI 12.3-16.3) reported donating blood within the previous 2 years. Eligibility was higher among men (62.6%, 95% CI 59.6-65.6) than women (52.8%, 95% CI 50.1-55.6). The most common exclusion factor was iron deficiency/anemia within the last 6 months; 3.8% (95% CI 3.2-4.6) of the sample were ineligible due to this factor alone. DISCUSSION: We estimate that approximately 10.5 million people (57.3% of 18-74-year-olds) are eligible to donate blood in Australia. Only 14.2% of those eligible at the time of survey reported donating blood within the previous 2 years, indicating a large untapped pool of potentially eligible blood 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.