ArticleTransfusion2025
Compliance with gender-neutral sexual behavior-based blood donor screening questions.
Article in Transfusion, 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.
- Residual risk of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C, and hepatitis B following implementation of sexual risk behavior-based screening in Canada.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Perceptions of donor screening-Do I always need to tell the truth?Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Gender-neutral assessment in Australia: Acceptance and eligibility among current donors.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Compliance with gender-neutral sexual behavior-based blood donor screening questions.Transfusion · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn September 2022, Canadian Blood Services replaced the time-based deferral for gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (gbMSM) with sexual behavior-based questions. All donors who had sex with a new partner or >1 partner in the last 3 months and anal sex were deferred, permitting gbMSM with one regular partner to donate. We aimed to measure compliance with the new criteria post-implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsPre-implementation 42,999; post-implementation 41,157 donors were invited to complete an anonymous online sexual risks survey. Results were weighted reflecting the donor base age, sex, and geography base. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
resultsIn total, 13,159 donors participated pre-implementation (33% participation, 6532 females and 6627 males of whom 183 had ever had sex with another man (gbMSM)); post-implementation 11,217 donors (28% participation, 5253 females and 5964 males of whom 188 were gbMSM). Pre-implementation 9.3% (4.3%-14.2%) gbMSM had a new or >1 partner and anal sex in the last 3 months (all ineligible), similar to post-implementation when some were eligible (8.9%, 4.1%-13.8%, p > .05). There was no difference between pre- and post-implementation for non-gbMSM males (pre- 0.7%, 0.5%-1.0% vs. post-0.7%, 0.4-0.9) and females (pre- 0.8%, 0.6%-1.0% vs. post-0.6%, 0.4-0.8%) (p > .05). The estimated non-compliance of those with deferrable behavior was 87% (79%-93%). Most donors reported being comfortable with the new questions. DISCUSSION: The majority of donors with deferrable sexual behaviors failed to disclose post-implementation. Donors may make a judgment about whether they need to disclose behaviors in 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.