ArticleInfectious diseases of poverty2026
Time-limited deferral scenarios and blood donation intentions among men who have sex with men in China: a nationwide mixed-methods study.
Article in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproaches to managing blood donation eligibility for men who have sex with men (MSM) vary across countries, and time-limited deferral policies have been adopted in an increasing number of jurisdictions. Our study aimed to evaluate attitudes towards and acceptance of time-limited blood donation deferral periods among MSM in China.
methodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, consisting of a nationwide cross-sectional survey of MSM in China from April to July 2024, followed by qualitative interviews. The survey collected sociodemographic characteristics, sexual behaviors, blood donation history, and attitudes towards four hypothetical deferral scenarios (12-, 6-, 3-, and 1-month deferral after most recent same-sex sexual behavior). We assessed willingness to donate under each scenario and estimated scenario-specific behavioral eligibility based on self-reported anal sex with another man during the corresponding lookback period. Multivariable modified Poisson regression, adjusted for age, education, and income, was used to identify factors associated with support for hypothetical time-limited deferral policies. Semi-structured interviews explored perceptions of the current prohibition and hypothetical deferral approaches and were used to explain and contextualize the survey findings.
resultsA total of 2725 MSM participated. Overall, 48% were neutral and 32% were supportive of hypothetical time-limited deferral approaches. As the hypothetical deferral period shortened from 12 months to 1 month, willingness to donate increased among both previous donors (44%, 50%, 61%, 74%; P for trend < 0.001) and non-donors (26%, 27%, 33%, 45%; P for trend < 0.001). Among MSM willing to donate under each scenario, the proportions reporting no anal sex with another man during the corresponding periods were 37%, 42%, 45%, and 53%, respectively. In qualitative interviews (n = 16), most participants (12/16) viewed hypothetical deferral approaches as more acceptable than the current lifelong prohibition.
conclusionsMany MSM in China expressed willingness to donate blood under hypothetical time-limited deferral scenarios, with higher acceptance under shorter deferral periods. These findings provide empirical evidence for future evaluation of whether shorter time-limited deferral approaches could improve acceptability and intended compliance while maintaining blood safety within China's existing donor screening and surveillance 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.