MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416157061 · doi:10.1111/vox.70152

A questionnaire‐based survey on conversion from whole blood to apheresis donations among group <scp>AB</scp> donors in Hong Kong

2025· article· en· W4416157061 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shun Yin Kong, Chui Yee Chu, Cheuk Kwong Lee

Notice bibliographique

RevueVox Sanguinis · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueBlood donation and transfusion practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésApheresisBlood donorDonationTransfusion medicineWhole bloodBlood productBlood transfusion

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service (HKRCBTS) is the sole blood service provider in Hong Kong and provides apheresis donation of platelet and plasma at the West Kowloon Donor Centre (WKC), Hong Kong. The estimated frequency of groups A, B, O and AB in Hong Kong blood donors is 25.1%, 26.8%, 42.3% and 5.7%, respectively. In 2024, there were 7826 group AB whole blood (WB) donors and 87 group AB apheresis donors in Hong Kong. Group AB plasma and group AB-negative platelets are considered universal to all recipients. The conversion of group AB donors from WB to apheresis donation can reduce the expiration of group AB red cells due to limited requests from client hospitals and increase the universal plasma supply. To explore the desire of group AB donors to convert from WB to apheresis donation, The HKRCBTS conducted a survey from April to June 2025 to all male group AB WB donors who were aged 21–50 years and weighed ≥60 kg in 2024. Female donors were excluded from this survey because a large proportion of female donors did not fulfil the apheresis donation weight requirement in our locality. Ethical approval was not sought because of the anonymous nature of the data. The survey was divided into two parts and consisted of eight questions. Part 1 (questions 1–4) explored their understanding of group AB blood product usage and apheresis donation, while Part 2 (questions 5–8) focused on their preference for WB or apheresis donation. Physical letters, which showed the quick-response code of the online survey and link to the HKRCBTS webpage about apheresis information, were sent to the target group. A pamphlet about apheresis donation was also included in the mail. A total of 3421 letters were sent, and 578 (16.9%) target donors completed the survey. The majority (49.1%) did not know the types of blood products manufactured from WB donation. Also, 63.1% of participants did not know that group AB red cells can be given only to recipients of the same blood group, whereas their plasma is universal to recipients. Regarding the knowledge of apheresis donation, 51.7% of participants did not know the details, but 76.5% of participants were interested in learning more about apheresis donation. Overall, 78.7% of respondents were positive towards conversion from a WB donor to an apheresis donor but 47.6% of them required more information before making a decision. To arouse their interest and deepen their understanding, the majority felt an information session or a tour to WKC would be beneficial. Also, 16.7% of those who showed a favourable response towards conversion opted for a direct phone call from WKC nurses for discussion. Of those who preferred to be WB donors, 39.8% declined apheresis donation because of long collection times. The uncomfortable sound from the apheresis machine and geographical concerns were also reported. There were 286 (49.5%) and 56 (9.7%) participants who agreed to be contacted by email or phone, respectively, for follow-up on apheresis donation. WKC staff successfully contacted 41 participants by phone within 1 month after the survey, and 34 donors registered for apheresis donation. For participants with valid email addresses, 239 emails were sent, but the data on the number of donors converted to apheresis donation following email contact were still pending at the time of writing. Our survey highlighted that the majority of the target group AB WB donors in Hong Kong accepted conversion to apheresis donation and wanted to learn more about it despite their limited background knowledge. The desire for conversion from WB to apheresis donation was much weaker in other regions. Anderson et al. reported that only 6% of WB donors in the United States were likely to donate platelets by apheresis the next year, with the length of apheresis donation and commitment to donate 12 times per year being the main reasons [1]. In a Canadian study of the motivational differences between WB and apheresis donors, WB donors emphasized the convenience of the collection sites more than apheresis donors (34% vs. 8%, p <0.05), whereas apheresis donors had a higher perceived need for donation than WB donors (47% vs. 38%, p <0.05) [2]. In Hong Kong, the WKC is the only donor centre with apheresis service among nine fixed donor centres, and 25 out of 123 (20.3%) respondents who would remain as WB donors found the WKC inconvenient. The HKRCBTS plans to introduce apheresis service in other donor centres to facilitate apheresis donation in the future. In summary, our questionnaire-based survey showed a high acceptance of conversion from WB to apheresis donation among group AB male donors in Hong Kong. The HKRCBTS will launch different campaigns in the future to enhance donors' knowledge about apheresis donation. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors confirm that the data that support the findings of this study are available within the article. Raw data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVox SanguinisMême sujetBlood donation and transfusion practicesTravaux en français237 207