Reducing reactions to blood donation with applied muscle tension: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unpleasant blood donation-related symptoms may discourage otherwise healthy, altruistic individuals from becoming repeat donors. This study examined a behavioral technique called applied muscle tension (AMT) that might reduce reactions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 605 donors at mobile clinics were assigned to either an AMT treatment condition, a no-treatment control condition, or a placebo control condition. AMT involves repeated tensing of major muscles and was taught using an instructional video. Participants in the placebo control group watched the same video but were told to practice the technique only from the time they got on the donation chair until insertion of the needle, without being told that reactions are unlikely during this period. RESULTS: There were no differences between men assigned to the three conditions. Women donors assigned to the AMT condition reported significantly fewer donation-related symptoms, required less chair reclining for reactions, and were more likely to produce a full unit of blood than women in both the no-treatment and placebo control conditions. Women in the AMT condition also said they would be more likely to recommend it to a friend who was going to give blood, but there were no significant effects of AMT on the rated probability of giving blood again or blood pressure change. CONCLUSIONS: Although it was not universally effective and the mechanisms of its effects are unclear, AMT is a simple behavioral technique that may be useful in reducing reactions to blood donation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".