The attitude of Canadian university students toward a behavior‐based blood donor health assessment questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, all men who have sex with men (MSM) are indefinitely deferred from donating blood. The purpose of this study was to determine the acceptability of an alternative behavior-based donor health questionnaire among Canadian university students. Further we sought to determine the perception of blood safety associated with specific risk behaviors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Questions found on the Canadian Blood Services' donor health assessment questionnaire as well as from studies assessing high-risk behavior for human immunodeficiency virus infection were included. For each question participants were asked to rate the acceptability, comfort in answering, perceived effect on blood safety, and whether the question would deter them from donating blood. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: A total of 741 students participated in the study. Questions regarding sexual practices of the donor were rated less important for blood safety compared to those assessing for sexually transmitted infections, sex for money, and injection drug use (30%-62% vs. 69%-95% unsafe). A total of 24.4% of students rated both questions on MSM status and a behavior-based alternative as equally unacceptable. We found an inverse correlation between perception of safety and acceptability of questions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a behavior-based screening modification is unlikely to change opinions or satisfy those who object to the MSM current policy in place. Acceptability of these questions might be related to a poor understanding of the effect of sexual practices on blood supply safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".