ArticleVox sanguinis2025
Understanding community perspectives for advancing inclusion of trans and gender-diverse people in blood donation in Australia.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motives and barriers to blood donation among adults aged over 50 years: A qualitative analysis.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Blood donor safety and selection criteria for individuals self-identifying as trans or non-binary.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Situating and repositioning disability within the blood donation context: Insights from 12 blood collection agencies.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Understanding community perspectives for advancing inclusion of trans and gender-diverse people in blood donation in Australia.Vox sanguinis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTrans and gender-diverse people who wish to donate blood face significant barriers with policies and procedures differing across countries. It remains critical to explore the experiences and perspectives of trans and gender-diverse people in different locations to understand challenges in local systems. We undertook a qualitative study focussed on procedures and processes affecting trans and gender-diverse people in Australia, and their views about needed change. MATERIALS AND
methodsStakeholders collaborated with the researchers to refine the focus of and design the research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 trans and gender-diverse people who were current, past or potential donors. The interviews comprised open-ended questions about donation experiences, knowledge of current policies and procedures and preferences for change. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsParticipants reported varied and inconsistent donation experiences. When compared with current practice, participants preferred a two-step approach to donor registration that asks for sex reported at birth followed by gender identity. However, they also expressed concern that the two-step approach could deter new donors and stressed the importance of only collecting information relevant to eligibility assessment. Participants were supportive of a gender-neutral approach to assess eligibility to donate.
conclusionOur study highlights significant barriers and procedural inconsistencies for trans and gender-diverse individuals when (considering) donating blood. We recommend more inclusive practices including clear communication about data use, rigorous staff training on gender diversity, registration processes that respect all gender identities and adopting a gender-neutral approach to donor screening.
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.