Motivations for donating and attitudes toward screening policies in US blood donors with viral infection

Abstract

Most donors give to help those in need, including HIV-positive donors. Our results establish a baseline from which additional studies can be compared focused on alternate ways to reduce noncompliance and improved messaging to ensure that high-risk potential donors understand the reasons for blood donor screening policies.

Context and social perceptions of blood donation in donors found positive for human immunodeficiency virus in France

“…Subjects of analysis have included blood donor criteria (namely, the MSM criteria), donor perceptions and motivations, as well as comprehension of the PDQ . Nevertheless, some of our findings are consistent with previous studies, such as limited understanding of the window period, and altruistic motives as the primary motivation for blood donation . Moreover, in accordance with our finding that donors conflate and confuse the safety of one's blood (or health) and risk taking, a qualitative study assessed understanding of the American PDQ in the general population and found that all questions were understood, by MSM and non‐MSM alike, “as asking the same thing: that is, ‘is my blood safe to donate?'…”

“…To our knowledge, this study is the first to apply a qualitative method to the analysis of social perceptions and motivations of blood donation and within a population of donors found positive for HIV. Nevertheless, some quantitative and semiquantitative studies have been conducted on positive blood donors to explore motivations of blood donations and reasons of risk‐factor nondisclosure . Qualitative research has focused more on target groups such as MSM blood donors, MSM, the general blood donor population, or in the general population .…”

“…Concerning opinion of donors on selection criteria, findings widely vary in reported support for the permanent deferral of MSM: Hughes and colleagues reported 38 of 39 MSM participants wishing to modify it to a shorter or more high‐risk‐based deferral (United States), Grenfell and colleagues reported 40% of a general population sample seeing it as inflexible and excessive (United Kingdom), Vahidnia and coworkers reported 90% of participants that did not think blood donor screening policies were unfair. Moreover, Grenfell and colleagues and Custer and colleagues found that at least half of the participants saw a 1‐year deferral as more acceptable, whereas our participants dismissed a 1‐year deferral as equally unacceptable.…”

Changing the deferral for men who have sex with men – an improved model to estimate HIV residual risk

“…Possible explanations for this include that previously excluded MSM that chose to donate had lower HIV risk than MSM in general, or that public health HIV testing was effective in ensuring most were aware of their status. Other reasons could be: deferrals for other eligibility criteria, that these men self‐assess as low risk correctly and self‐defer, or that altruistic, community‐oriented MSM who want to donate are simply a low‐risk group .…”

Which Infectious Blood Donors Could Be Identified by the Donor History Questionnaire - Comparison of Blood Donors Infected with HIV or HCV with Notified Cases from General Population in Germany

“…donors in steady partnerships), studies showed that a considerable proportion of infected donors is aware of risk behavior and makes use of the free, sensitive, and confidential testing to check infection status. A study among US donors with sexually transmissible viral infections showed 19% test-seeking donors [24]; in France 56% of HIV-infected donors reported test-seeking motivation [25]. In a German case control study, HIV test seeking behavior was significantly more present in HIV-positive donors than in controls [26].…”