ArticleScientific reports2025
Discrete choice experiment to determine preferences of blood donation in Iran.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Associations between whole blood donation and cancer incidence: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Safe blood is vital for patient care, but shortages are common. To increase donor numbers, we must understand individual preferences. This study explores blood donation preferences among college students and faculty members in Iran, aiming to inform more effective recruitment strategies. In this 2024 cross-sectional study, we used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess blood donation preferences among 895 college students (face-to-face interviews) and 220 faculty member (online survey). Participants chose between hypothetical donation centers based on attributes including monetary compensation for donors, standard screening tests, money for charity, recipient privileges, travel time, blood donation certificates and (for faculty member) paid leave. We separately analyzed student and faculty data using conditional and mixed logit models. The study included 220 faculty members (male-to-female ratio: 2.49) and 895 college students (male-to-female ratio: 0.26). The study found that 11.5% of college students and 50.9% of faculty members had donated blood at least once in their lifetime. The results of the conditional logit model for college students indicated that the most desirable attribute was standard screening (coef:1.484; p < 0.001), followed by a travel time of 15 min (coef:1.023; p < 0.001), the privilege of receiving blood for family members (coef:0.519; p < 0.001), and monetary contributions to charity (coef:0.434; p < 0.001). In addition, the conditional logit model results for faculty members showed that a travel time of 30 min (coef:0.587; p < 0.001) was the most preferred attribute, closely followed by a paid leave of 1.5 days (coef:0.584; p < 0.001) and standard screening (coef:0.578; p < 0.001). Additionally, the results from the mixed logit models for both groups were consistent with those obtained from the conditional logit analyses. This study, investigating blood donation preferences in Iran, reveals that individuals are receptive to nonmonetary incentives. Understanding these preferences is crucial for developing targeted recruitment strategies that enhance blood donation participation rates.
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.