ArticleCureus2024
Sociodemographic Profile of Blood Donations and Ways to Encourage Them.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in blood donor management: A narrative review.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Investigating the mediating role of comprehensive self-efficacy in the relationship between altruistic factors and voluntary non-remunerated blood donation behavior.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Psychological, informational, logistical, and social determinants of regular blood donation in Malaysia.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence of Neutralizing Antibodies in Healthy Adults, in Mexico, Against Human and Simian Adenovirus Types.Viruses · 2025Article
- Blood group profile of Türkiye with regional and demographic differences: a 23-year retrospective study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Blood Donation Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Amid Instability: A Biphasic Cross-Sectional Study in West Bank, Palestine (2022 vs 2025).SAGE open nursingArticle
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
introductionMaintaining blood stocks in Brazil faces challenges; hence, it is crucial to develop effective strategies to recruit and retain donors, such as campaigns and social marketing programs to raise awareness, but there is a lack of studies about the donators' profiles, as well as their barriers or incentives.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze the characteristics of donors and the factors that influence their decisions.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study carried out between April and November 2022 using a structured questionnaire sent through a community created on Facebook, addressing common people over 18 years old, containing closed questions, supported by Google Forms. Statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17 (Released 2008; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States) and the Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, with p < 0.05.
resultsThe sample relied on 1019 participants, women (72.8%), age group > 30 years (81.1%), the most represented blood type was O positive (37.5%), and men donated more frequently than women (76.5% vs. 40.6%). The main reasons for not donating are medical conditions (39.7%) and lack of time (33.8%). The main reasons for donating are helping voluntarily (97.6%) and donating to family/friends (96.4%).
conclusionThere was a significant difference between the genders of blood donors, with more men donating, especially those over 30 years old, and with income between 1-8 minimum wages. The main barriers to donating are lack of time and information. Based on this, it is possible to target campaigns at women, young people, and people with income above nine minimum wages. The main reasons for donating are altruism, obtaining test results, and financial benefits.
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.