ArticleTransfusion2025
How do we engage with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in blood donation and research? Reflections from the Assessing Donor Variability and New Concepts in Eligibility study.
Article in Transfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood donor safety and selection criteria for individuals self-identifying as trans or non-binary.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Assessing Donor Variability and New Concepts in Eligibility (ADVANCE) study was a multicenter cross-organizational collaboration to collect data to inform possible changes in blood donor selection criteria for men who have sex with men. Multiple recruitment approaches were used, and these may be applicable to current efforts in LGBTQ+ community engagement to recruit new blood donors.
methodsFieldwork for ADVANCE was a partnership between blood collection organizations (BCOs) and LGBTQ+ community organizations. First, we had to establish relationships with these organizations based on trust and commitment to common objectives. We developed recruitment materials for online and printed distribution. We worked directly with organizations in each community to tailor outreach. Approaches changed over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.
resultsThe study website was a portal for general information about donation policy, the study itself, scheduling study visits, and news stories. It was important to evolve outreach messages and approaches over time. Study team members created changing content and posting schedules on the website and social media platforms. We also worked with community and social media influencers to raise community awareness about the study. Later in the pandemic, we were able to recruit at in-person community events. These in-person events were our most successful outreach. DISCUSSION: The partnerships with LGBTQ+ community organizations, diversity promotion groups, and other members of the community were instrumental in making ADVANCE a success. The approaches we used for the study may be valuable for BCO outreach to attract new 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.