ArticleTransfusion2026
Situating and repositioning disability within the blood donation context: Insights from 12 blood collection agencies.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. 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.
- The neurodivergent blood donor: Fairness, discrimination, screening, and behavior.Transfusion · 2026Article
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
backgroundDiversity Equity and Inclusion initiatives in blood donation have progressed for priority groups such as ethnic minorities, men who have sex with men, and trans and diverse donors. However, advocacy for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in healthcare, especially in blood donation, remains slow. This study sought international perspectives on how Blood Collection Agencies (BCAs) define and engage with PWDs.
methodsA survey was circulated to members of the Alliance of Blood Operators (ABO) and the Asia Pacific Blood Network (APBN). Responses were received from 13/15 members, with 12 consenting for their data to be published.
resultsAll respondents reported including information about at least one form of disability in donor information, most commonly vision impairment, hearing, and mobility-related disabilities. Physical and sensory disabilities were more frequently recognized than cognitive disabilities. Most BCAs did not collect disability data. More than half reported having standard operating procedures about disability, but most lacked disability access and inclusion plans (DAIPS). Only three BCAs allowed PWDs to donate in wheelchairs.
conclusionThis study provides foundational insights into how BCAs conceptualize and respond to disability. Findings reveal discrepancies in definitions, accessibility implementations, and inclusion protocols. Despite some facilitating access for donors with mobility challenges or offering staff inclusion education, gaps remain in DAIPs, donor data on PWDs, and research. To promote equity and expand the donor pool, increased research focus on inclusive data tools and exploration of PWDs' lived experiences is recommended.
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.