Actions and Attitudes of Men who Have Sex With Men Under Past, Current, and Hypothetical Future Blood Donation Deferral Policies

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Medicine Reviews Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tmrv.2022.06.007
Christopher N. Johns , Grant Simonson , Benny Mart Hiwatig , Michael W. Ross
{"title":"Actions and Attitudes of Men who Have Sex With Men Under Past, Current, and Hypothetical Future Blood Donation Deferral Policies","authors":"Christopher N. Johns ,&nbsp;Grant Simonson ,&nbsp;Benny Mart Hiwatig ,&nbsp;Michael W. Ross","doi":"10.1016/j.tmrv.2022.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Eligibility criteria for blood product donation are important for the safety of the blood supply, though many have called into question criteria that limit donations for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM). Recently, in the U.S.A., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), decreased the ‘deferral’ period, the period in which one must abstain from sex, for MSM, from twelve months to three. This study examined the proportion of MSM respondents that donated blood under past and current deferral policies, as well as the proportion that would consider donating under hypothetical shorter deferral policies. To achieve this, an electronic survey was disseminated on social media platforms via virtual flier calling for participation from a self-selected convenience sample of the MSM community. Compared to either the 12-month or 3-month deferral policies, intent to donate blood was significantly higher in both alternative two week or no deferral policy scenarios. The majority of respondents who did donate did so without following deferral guidelines under both the 12-month and 3-month policies. There was no significant change in the proportion of those who donated against guidelines between the twelve- and three-month deferrals. While social media is an effective tool for survey work it poses significant risk for selection bias. Further studies with diverse sampling are necessary to better elucidate blood production donation trends within the MSM community.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56081,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","volume":"36 3","pages":"Pages 152-158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796322000268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Eligibility criteria for blood product donation are important for the safety of the blood supply, though many have called into question criteria that limit donations for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM). Recently, in the U.S.A., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), decreased the ‘deferral’ period, the period in which one must abstain from sex, for MSM, from twelve months to three. This study examined the proportion of MSM respondents that donated blood under past and current deferral policies, as well as the proportion that would consider donating under hypothetical shorter deferral policies. To achieve this, an electronic survey was disseminated on social media platforms via virtual flier calling for participation from a self-selected convenience sample of the MSM community. Compared to either the 12-month or 3-month deferral policies, intent to donate blood was significantly higher in both alternative two week or no deferral policy scenarios. The majority of respondents who did donate did so without following deferral guidelines under both the 12-month and 3-month policies. There was no significant change in the proportion of those who donated against guidelines between the twelve- and three-month deferrals. While social media is an effective tool for survey work it poses significant risk for selection bias. Further studies with diverse sampling are necessary to better elucidate blood production donation trends within the MSM community.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在过去、现在和假设的未来献血延迟政策下男男性行为和态度
捐献血液制品的资格标准对血液供应的安全至关重要,尽管许多人对限制男男性行为者(MSM)捐献的标准提出了质疑。最近,在美国,食品和药物管理局(FDA)将男男性接触者必须禁欲的“延迟”期从12个月缩短到3个月。这项研究调查了在过去和目前的延迟政策下献血的男男性行为者的比例,以及在假设的较短延迟政策下考虑献血的比例。为了实现这一目标,一项电子调查通过虚拟传单在社交媒体平台上传播,呼吁男男性接触者社区自行选择方便样本参与。与12个月或3个月的延迟政策相比,两周或无延迟政策的献血意愿明显更高。大多数捐赠的受访者都没有遵循12个月和3个月政策下的延期指导方针。在12个月和3个月的延迟期间,违反指导原则的捐赠比例没有显著变化。虽然社交媒体是调查工作的有效工具,但它也带来了很大的选择偏见风险。为了更好地阐明男男性行为者社区的献血趋势,有必要进一步开展不同采样的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Transfusion Medicine Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine Reviews provides an international forum in English for the publication of scholarly work devoted to the various sub-disciplines that comprise Transfusion Medicine including hemostasis and thrombosis and cellular therapies. The scope of the journal encompasses basic science, practical aspects, laboratory developments, clinical indications, and adverse effects.
期刊最新文献
Single vs Double-Unit Transfusion in Patients With Hematological Disorders Undergoing Chemotherapy or Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Whole Blood Donor Iron Management Across Europe: Experiences and Challenges in Four Blood Establishments Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse Ultra-Massive Transfusion: Predictors of Occurrence and In-Hospital mortality From the Australian and New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry (ANZ-MTR) Beta-Amyloid Related Neurodegenerative and Neurovascular Diseases: Potential Implications for Transfusion Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1