How to Motivate Whole Blood Donors to Become Plasma Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the efficacy of interventions to recruit new plasma donors among whole blood donors. A sample of 924 donors was randomized to one of three conditions: control; information only by nurse; and information plus self-positive image message by nurse (SPI). Participants in the control condition only received a leaflet describing the plasma donation procedure. In the two experimental conditions the leaflet was explained face-to-face by a nurse. The dependent variables were the proportion of new plasma donors and the number of donations at six months. Overall, 141 (15.3%) new plasma donors were recruited at six months. There were higher proportions of new plasma donors in the two experimental conditions compared to the control condition (P < .001); the two experimental conditions did not differ. Also, compared to the control condition, those in the experimental conditions (all Ps < .001) gave plasma more often (information only by nurse: d = .26; SPI: d = .32); the SPI intervention significantly outperformed (P < .05) the information only by nurse condition. The results suggest that references to feelings of SPI such as feeling good and being proud and that giving plasma is a rewarding personal experience favor a higher frequency of plasma 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".