BACKGROUND Incentives are often used to enhance the effectiveness of recruitment and retention campaigns targeting blood donors. However, the degree to which incentives succeed in attracting and facilitating repeat donation is unclear. A systematic literature review, following PRISMA guidelines, investigated the existing empirical evidence regarding the use of monetary and nonmonetary incentives within blood donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A comprehensive search of relevant databases identified a total of 71 papers for inclusion in the review for defining and operationalizing incentives (Objective 1), of which nine papers empirically investigated attitudes toward incentives (Objective 2), 31 papers investigated the impact on blood donation behavior (Objective 3), and eight papers investigated the impact on blood safety (Objective 4). RESULTS Overall, research into the use of incentives in blood donation is limited, characterized by comparatively few studies, predominantly focused on whole blood donors, that are confounded by current operating context (paid or voluntary). No incentive has been identified that all segments of the nondonor and donor panel report positive attitudes toward, that has a positive impact on behavior, and that has no negative impact on blood safety. Certain incentives (i.e., discounts, tickets, gifts, and paid time off work) have the strongest evidence base for potential inclusion within voluntary nonremunerated (VNR) donation systems. CONCLUSION Due to the limited nature of the existing literature (particularly for apheresis donors) and inconsistencies observed within the results, additional research investigating the likely impact of introducing (or removing) monetary or nonmonetary incentives in VNR donor recruitment or retention is essential.
In the context of decreased demand for whole-blood and increased demand for plasma-derived products, donors in Australia are increasingly being asked to convert from whole-blood to plasmapheresis donations. Plasmapheresis is a different type of donation to whole-blood as the process takes longer, and can be engaged in more frequently. What is unknown is whether wholeblood donors view donating plasma as consistent with their donor identity, and how they respond to the possibility of donating more frequently. To explore this, we undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 26 whole-blood donors who had recently made their first plasma donation. Findings indicated that while donating plasma was viewed as a bigger ask than donating whole-blood, the former was viewed as consistent with their identity as a donor because both behaviours were seen to benefit others and self, and were located within the same institutional context. Donating plasma was an opportunity for donors to enhance their self-concept as an altruistic giver. When contemplating their future donation behaviour, donors considered how their donor identity would fit alongside other salient roles. These findings have implications for how institutions can position their request of existing donors to give a different gift.
This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as
Background O‐negative donors are a critical resource for blood collection agencies, and their recruitment and retention provides an ongoing challenge. Motivational interviewing shows promise as a tool to promote donor retention, although concerns about scalability remain. The current study examined the effect of an automated Web‐based interview drawing on motivational interviewing and self‐determination theory on O‐negative donors' motivation, intention, and behavior. Study Design and Methods Within 13 days of donating, 2820 O‐negative donors completed baseline measures of motivation and intention before being randomly assigned to complete either a motivational interview (MI) or active control interview (ACI). Motivation and intention were assessed at 2 days and at 7 weeks after participation in the MI or ACI, with return behavior tracked for 6 months following trial completion. Results Changes in donor motivation and intention, rate, and time to return did not vary by participation in the MI or ACI. When compared with O‐negative donors who experienced business‐as‐usual practices, donors completing the MI or ACI returned to donate more, and they returned more quickly. However, subsequent exploratory analyses considering the behavior of those who did not accept the invitation to participate and those who completed only baseline measures showed that the improved return behavior of donors in the MI or ACI conditions was likely not due to any specific properties of the MI or ACI activities. Conclusions Australian O‐negative donors were highly internally motivated and committed to donating. An automated Web‐based motivational interview appears to be of limited effectiveness in promoting the return of such donors.
Background Early in the COVID‐19 pandemic, Australian donors aged 70 and over were advised to temporarily stop donating. The aim of this research was to understand the factors associated with some of these donors continuing to donate despite the advice, and whether adherence to the advice had negative implications for donor retention. Study Design and Methods Survey data from 2078 donors were analyzed to understand the factors associated with donating blood during the first 6 months of the pandemic, and the impact of following stay‐at‐home advice during the first 6 months of the pandemic on donor return 6–12 months into the pandemic. Panel data were used to gain an overview of donation behavior before, during, and after the initial phase of the pandemic. Results Donations by donors aged 70 and over decreased disproportionately to other age groups during the early stages of the pandemic. Sex, total donation count, awareness of stay‐at‐home advice from the Blood Collection Agency, the mode of receiving stay‐at‐home advice, donor risk perceptions and attitudes toward stay‐at‐home advice were associated with donation behavior in the first 6 months of the pandemic. Donors who did not donate in the first 6 months of the pandemic had lower odds of returning 6–12 months into the pandemic. Conclusion Stay‐at‐home advice was partially successful in preventing older donors from donating; however, more tailored communication approaches may have prevented more donors from donating. Implementation of stay‐at‐home advice should be accompanied by strategies to prevent ongoing donor lapse in the medium‐ to long‐term.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.