ArticleVox sanguinis2025
Perceptions of deferred blood donors regarding false-positive screening results for infectious diseases and European blood establishment strategies.
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 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.
- Re-entry of donors deferred for false-reactive screening tests in Canada: 10 years post implementation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Perceptions of deferred blood donors regarding false-positive screening results for infectious diseases and European blood establishment strategies.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThis study explores the perceptions of deferred blood donors in the Netherlands regarding the information provided upon receiving false-positive screening (FPS) deferral letters for infectious diseases. To ensure blood supply safety, rigorous screening for infectious agents is implemented by blood establishments. However, FPS results can create challenges after donor notification, leading to psychological distress. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study purposively selected whole-blood donors who had received deferral letters due to two FPS results between April and October 2023. Semi-structured interviews, guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM), examined health behaviours through seven constructs. Additionally, a survey of European Blood Alliance (EBA) members was conducted to gather insights on FPS management practices. Interview transcripts were coded and modelled to illustrate relationships between the themes.
resultsTen in-depth interviews were held, revealing varied responses: some donors felt reassured by safety protocols, while the majority experienced psychological distress. Key themes included emotional reactions, contact methods, follow-up communication, engagement with Sanquin Blood Supply and altruistic motivations. The EBA survey shows varied FPS notification practices, rejection protocols, limited donor reaction studies and diverse support measures.
conclusionImproving communication clarity, providing follow-up procedures and adopting best practices from EBA members can enhance donor experience. These efforts are essential for refining the deferral process and improving donor perceptions, ultimately benefiting the donor and the blood supply system.
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.