Understanding the meaning of permanent deferral for blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To ensure the safety of the blood supply, it is necessary to permanently defer blood donors with a repeat-reactive transmissible disease test result. The purpose of this study was to explore the permanent deferral experience from the donor's perspective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted with donors from two Canadian blood centers who received written notice of permanent deferral in six deferral categories: human immunodeficiency virus-1 and/or -2 and hepatitis C virus and/or hepatitis B virus (negative, indeterminate, or positive). Telephone interviews were conducted with a semistructured questionnaire. Interview transcripts were coded and central themes were identified. The data were then modeled to illustrate the relationships between the themes. RESULTS: Twenty-eight permanently deferred donors were interviewed and described a variety of negative emotional and behavioral responses including confusion, shock, disbelief, panic, fear, anger, stigmatization, and loss. A conceptual model was developed illustrating the phases that a deferred donor goes through (identifying as a healthy donor, receiving notification, experiencing emotional and behavioral reactions, trying to make sense of what happened, and taking action) as they travel along the path to becoming either a "reconciled" or "not reconciled" permanently deferred donor. Participants offered constructive suggestions for modifying the notification process including revising the letter, providing follow-up, and educating family physicians. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to use qualitative research methodology to explore the experience of permanent blood donor deferral. More studies are needed to validate and expand this preliminary conceptual model.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".