Donor anxiety, needle pain, and syncopal reactions combine to determine retention: a path analysis of two‐year donor return data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to expand the donor pool by recruiting younger donors have resulted in higher numbers of initial donations, but retention of young donors continues to be challenging. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Path analysis was used to examine the simultaneous relationships among syncopal reactions, donation anxiety, needle pain, donor satisfaction, and donation intention in predicting repeat donation. Participants included 421 first- and second-time donors recruited for a study comparing the effects of predonation water loading with and without the use of applied muscle tension during donation (52% female, 60.8% first-time donor, mean age 20.3 years). For this longitudinal follow-up study, donor database records were accessed 2 years after the index donation to assess repeat donation. RESULTS: Results of a series of path analyses demonstrated the influential role of donor anxiety in shaping donor retention (final model χ(2) = 35.75, root mean square error of approximation 0.03, comparative fit index 0.98, weighted root mean square residual 0.74). First, anxiety exerted a direct negative influence on donation intention, the proximal and sole direct predictor of repeat donation. Second, anxiety increased the likelihood of donor-reported needle pain, adversely affecting donation satisfaction and, subsequently, donation intention. Finally, anxiety was associated with donor ratings of syncopal reactions through its impact on needle pain, which also contributed to decreased donation intention. CONCLUSION: These results provide novel evidence that donation anxiety plays a central role in shaping future donation behavior. Individual differences in anxiety must be considered when developing and testing strategies to enhance blood donor retention.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".