ArticleTransfusion2025
Donation initiators: Shifting the focus from outcome to first-time engagement - An interview 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 1 paper.
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.
- Donation initiators: Shifting the focus from outcome to first-time engagement - An interview study.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA stable whole-blood supply is vital to healthcare and relies on the successful recruitment and retention of donors, with first-time donors playing a key role in replacing those who lapse over time. The initial donation attempt is emotionally and cognitively significant, and deferral at this stage can lead to disappointment and disengagement. Language that foineligibility rather than intent may reinforce negative self-perceptions and reduce the likelihood of future donation.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the subjective experiences of deferral among first-time donation candidates and to identify a term that accurately reflects their intent to donate.
methodsTwenty individuals temporarily deferred during their first whole-blood donation attempt participated in semi-structured interviews. A constructivist-phenomenological approach guided data collection and analysis, focusing on participants' motivations, identity perceptions, and preferences for appropriate terminology. Suggested terms were evaluated through qualitative content analysis based on four criteria: donation status and context, avoidance of donor labeling, positive and inclusive language, and bilingual feasibility.
resultsFifteen out of 20 participants did not see themselves as blood donors due to the absence of a completed donation. They proposed 25 terms, grouped into 17 categories. "Donation Initiators" emerged as the preferred label, positively acknowledging the intent without implying failure and framing deferral as part of the donation journey.
conclusionIntroducing the term "Donation Initiators" offers a low-threshold, linguistically inclusive alternative that may improve communication, reduce negative emotional reactions to deferral, and support donor engagement. Future research should investigate its impact on donor identity and retention.
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.