The effects of a phone call prompt on subsequent blood donation among first‐time donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A strategy used by blood centers to retain donors is to place phone call reminders. However, among first-time donors, no studies have tested the effect of this strategy. This was the aim of this study among individuals who had recently given their first lifetime blood donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental study using a nonequivalent control group was adopted; participants in the control group were donors with blood types B+ and AB+, since these individuals are not phoned by the blood agency. A total of 1604 first-time donors aged 18 to 70 years from the province of Quebec, Canada, were assigned to the experimental (n = 870) or the control (n = 734) group. Participants in the experimental group were phoned a few days before they had a new opportunity to give blood while those in the control condition were not phoned. RESULTS: In the experimental condition, 48.3% of the donors attempted to give blood during the 12-month follow-up period compared to 38.0% in the control condition. The hazards of the first blood donation attempt among donors who were phoned were 32% higher compared to the hazards of those who were not phoned (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that a first phone call reminder about the upcoming opportunity to give blood again has a significant positive effect on return rates among first-time donors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".