Donor attention to reading materials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mandatory predonation reading materials inform donors about risk factors for transmissible disease, possible complications of donation and changes to the donation process. We aimed to assess the attention to predonation reading materials and factors which may affect attention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey in 2008 of 18,108 blood donors asked about self-assessed attention to reading the materials. In face-to-face interviews, 441 donors completed additional questions about reading the materials and a literacy test. Qualitative interviews of 27 donors assessed their approach to reading. RESULTS: In the national survey, most of the first-time donors said they read all or most of the materials (90.9% first-time vs. 57.6% repeat donors, P < 0.001) and 66% vs. 23.1% reported reading them carefully (P < 0.001). In face-to-face interviews comparing those who read materials carefully, skimmed or did not read, most knew that donors are informed of positive transmissible disease test results (97.1%, 95.5, 98.0 P > 0.05), but fewer recalled seeing the definition of sex (77.2%, 56.9, 24.2 P < 0.001). Literacy was poor (30.5% frustration level, 60.3% instructional, 9.2% independent) but similar when those who read materials carefully, skimmed or did not read were compared (P > 0.05). Qualitative interviews showed that donors are reluctant to read any more than necessary and decide based on perceived importance or relevance. CONCLUSION: Attention to predonation reading materials tends to be better among first-time donors. The effectiveness is limited by low motivation to read, especially for repeat donors, as well as poor literacy.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it