ArticleTransfusion2026
Gender-neutral assessment in Australia: Acceptance and eligibility among current donors.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood collection agencies are shifting to gender-neutral risk assessment for donor eligibility. Pre-implementation data on donor eligibility and acceptance rates are essential to understand the likely impact of these changes locally. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was emailed to current Australian blood donors (donated in the last 12 months). Consistent with the recommendations of the United Kingdom's For the Assessment of Individualised Risk (FAIR) project and the United States of America (USA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gender-neutral screening criteria, participants were asked about sexual behaviors in the last 3 months (multiple partners, new partners, anal sex) and whether being asked about these would deter them from donating. Demographic characteristics and behavioral responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.
resultsOf 7938 respondents (11.3% response rate), only 0.6% (95% CI 0.4-0.8) would be ineligible under gender-neutral criteria (0.7%, 95% CI 0.2-1.8 of those who donated in the last 3 months). Those potentially ineligible were younger and less likely to identify as heterosexual. While tolerance for screening questions was generally high (≥70.0% indicated questions would not stop them donating), 12.7% (95% CI 12.0-13.4) indicated that one or more of the questions asked of all would stop or be quite likely to stop them attempting to donate. Some variation in tolerance was observed by demographic categories. DISCUSSION: Implementation of gender-neutral screening criteria in Australia would result in minimal donor loss due to ineligibility. While questions would be generally tolerated, careful implementation considering demographic variations is warranted.
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.