MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Applied tension may help retain donors who are ambivalent about needles

2009· article· en· W1999739057 on OpenAlexafffund
Blaine Ditto, Christopher France, Cheryl Holly

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsAmbivalenceDonationBlood donorVasovagal syncopeMedicineBlood collectionPsychologyBlood lossSocial psychologySurgeryAnesthesiaEmergency medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vasovagal symptoms can discourage people who might otherwise give blood on many occasions. However, the effects of symptoms on donor retention as well as the effects of treatments to reduce vasovagal symptoms on donor retention are probably moderated by a person's confidence that they can tolerate the procedure. METHODS: Data from a study on the effects of the muscle tensing technique applied tension (AT) on donor retention were examined to determine if (1) the degree of donor ambivalence about needles influenced the impact of vasovagal symptoms on subsequent return and (2) ambivalence about needles moderated the effect of learning AT on donor return. One-year follow-up data on 614 people who had previously given blood and were randomly assigned to either a no treatment, donation-as-usual condition or one of two conditions involving AT were obtained. Self-reported degree of needle ambivalence and vasovagal symptoms were assessed during the initial blood donation. RESULTS: Among participants in the no treatment group, increases in vasovagal symptoms were associated with decreases in donor return but only among people who expressed some fear of blood draws. Similarly, among people who expressed no fear of needles, learning AT had no effect on post-donation estimate of the likelihood they would give blood again or return rate. However, among people with some fear of blood draws learning AT led to both a higher estimate that they would give blood again as well as actual return rate. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of vasovagal symptoms may not deter people who are generally confident in their ability to tolerate blood donation. However, among people who are ambivalent about needles, symptoms may 'confirm' pre-existing doubts about their suitability for blood donation and lead to drop-out. Targeted interventions that give the uncertain volunteer a sense of confidence that they might be able to realize their goal and become a regular blood donor may be useful.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207