Donor motivation in Xi’an, China: comparison with Canadian donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In China, paid donation is prohibited by law. There is little literature assessing donor motivation in China, and comparison with western countries such as Canada is important in understanding the application of Western literature. We compared motivational factors in donors from the city of Xi'an, China, with Canadian donors matched for age, sex and donation status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 218 donors in Xi'an completed an interview about motivation as did 218 Canadian donors matched for age, sex and donation status. Frequencies and percentages of responses to questions were tabulated and compared using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: Donors in Xi'an and Canada felt a personal responsibility to donate blood (81·2% vs. 78·0%, P = 0·2057), but Xi'an donors were more likely to consider blood donation a social responsibility (81·7% vs. 45·2%, P < 0·0001). Xi'an donors more often believed that society views donation as a normal activity (98·6% vs. 48·4%, P < 0·0001) and that the social atmosphere promotes donation (90·3% vs. 53·5%, P < 0·0001) and saw greater health benefit (52·3% vs. 12·5%, P < 0·0001). Most Xi'an donors believed in balance between their life force (Qi) and blood (86·7% vs. 49·8%, P < 0·0001) but did not believe blood lost from donating would affect this (0·5% vs. 3·8%, P = 0·01). CONCLUSION: While traditional Chinese beliefs may not be seen as a barrier among people in Xi'an who donate blood, blood donation is seen differently than by Canadian donors. There is a need for more research specific to China to tailor recruitment strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".