ArticleVox sanguinis2026
Understanding donor behaviour following a deferral for low haemoglobin: A cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 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.
- Understanding donor behaviour following a deferral for low haemoglobin: A cross-sectional survey study.Vox sanguinis · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWhile deferral due to low haemoglobin (Hb) is known to affect donor return, how donors react to and manage low Hb is less well understood. This paper aims to (1) describe donor activities to manage low Hb, and (2) examine donor knowledge, recalled emotions, satisfaction and potential concerns, and to determine their association with doctor visit and actual donor return. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online survey was completed by 360 donors (mean age = 51.0 ± 16.7 years; 78.1% female) on average 13 days after a low Hb deferral (females <115 g/L; males <125 g/L). Comparative analyses (gender, age, Hb level and donation experience) and logistic regression analyses were conducted.
resultsMost donors reported visiting (51%) or making an appointment to see (17%) a doctor. Donors reported a moderate understanding of their Hb result and recalled feeling Disappointed and Valued rather much at the time of deferral. Donors reported high intentions to return to donate, with little self-reported effect of the low Hb result. Significant determinants for a doctor visit were feeling Grateful (odds ratio [OR]: 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.54), Worried (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.05-1.71) and Disappointed (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96). Significant determinants of return within 12 months were feeling Sadness (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.01-1.41), Valued (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94) and donation intentions (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09-1.57).
conclusionTo improve donor retention or doctor follow-up, targeting emotional responses may help, but further research is needed to understand what other factors affect donor return following a low Hb result.
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.