Best paper prize of Vox Sanguinis for 2008

There is an ongoing debate whether platelet concentrates (PCs) prepared from either whole‐blood donations or by plateletpheresis are superior. Usage of these two product types varies greatly between countries and individual institutions. Some use mainly apheresis PCs; others prefer pooled PCs which are produced from whole‐blood donations. This review summarizes the existing information on these product types. In the first part data on quality, efficacy and safety are reviewed. It is important to note that the issue cannot be answered just by comparing ‘the’ apheresis platelet concentrate versus ‘the’ pooled platelet concentrate. Other factors which determine the quality of a product, e.g. residual leukocyte count, plasma content, additive solution or storage period may be even more important. The focus of the debate should be shifted. It is much more needed to further improve the overall quality of PCs and to optimize treatment of thrombocytopenic patients than to concentrate on a single‐edged view on just the preparation method. In the second part of this review we compare the product types from the donor’s point of view. If PCs which are equally safe and effective can be obtained by various methods, ethics and the safety of the healthy volunteer donor tips the scales. The decision on the use of a particular product type should take into account all aspects of efficacy, side effects and availability of the product as well as the donor’s perspective and the commitment to maximize the use of the valuable whole‐blood donation.     

Motivation, recruitment and retention of voluntary non-remunerated blood donors: a survey-based questionnaire study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish which motivational and socio-demographic factors are important for the development of a long-term commitment as a voluntary, non-remunerated blood donor. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional sample survey of active blood donors in Oslo, Norway, was conducted. Donors filled in a self-administered questionnaire during donation. Data on motivation were analysed using factor analysis. RESULTS: The blood donors' socio-demographic characteristics were found to be similar to those of the population as a whole. The single, most important, recruitment channel was the influence of active blood donors. Five dimensions of blood-donor motivation were identified with factor analysis. These were: altruism and empathy; social reasons (such as the influence of friends and family); strengthening of one's self-esteem; positive experiences associated with donation; and a moral obligation to donate. Support for statements on altruistic motives for donation was strong and similar in long-time and short-time donors. In contrast, short-time donors were more likely to be motivated by factors related to self-esteem than were long-term donors. CONCLUSION: The 'good habit' of continued blood donation seems not to be exclusively linked to a high degree of reported other-regarding ('altruistic') reasons, but also to a combination of motives, including some modestly self-regarding motives.     

First-time donors responding to a national disaster may be an untapped resource for the blood centre

Background On 12 May 2008, a severe earthquake struck Sichuan in China. Many people donated blood for the first time, leading us to question whether these donors might become repeat donors in the future. The return pattern of post‐earthquake first‐time donors (PEFTD) was compared with that of first‐time donors (FTD) in a comparable period. Methods Demographic characteristics, transfusion‐transmissible infection rates and 1‐year return rates were compared between 5147 PEFTD (5/13‐5/19, 2008) and 3176 FTD (5/13‐5/19, 2009) from five Chinese blood centres using chi‐squared tests. Adjusted logistic regression was used to detect earthquake effect on donor return. Results Post‐earthquake first‐time donors were more frequently between 26 and 45 years, men, and better educated compared with the control group. Slightly higher but not statistically significant increased rates of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) (0·87% vs. 0·50%, P = 0·054), hepatitis C virus (HCV) (0·70% vs. 0·63%, P = 0·414), syphilis (0·9% vs. 0·7%, P = 0·489) and lower rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (0·31% vs. 0·60%, P = 0·078) reactivity were detected for PEFTD. The 1‐year return rate for PEFTD was significantly lower than that of the controls (8·0% vs. 13·0%, P < 0·001). After adjusting for demographic factors, donation volume and sites, the PEFTD were less likely to return in 1 year than the controls (OR: 0·520; 95% CI: 0·442, 0·611). Conclusion Post‐earthquake first‐time donors may be less likely to donate again without continuing motivation strategies. Further studies on PEFTD’s lack of motivation to return for donation are needed to design recruitment strategies to convert PEFTD to become repeat donors to continuously replenish the blood supply.